Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER, in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Commercial Gas Bill,

As amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

London County Council (Money) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CHILD MARRIAGES.

Miss RATHBONE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Census Returns already published, for three provinces of India, all show an enormous increase in child marriage since the previous census, and especially those in Bihar and Orissa; the number of wives and widows under one year old has risen from 507 in 1921 to 4,959 in 1931; those between one and 10 years old from 504,920 to 934,391; and the total under 15 years old from 1,468,618 in 1921 to 2,048,862 in 1931; and whether, in view of these facts, he will direct the Government of India to consider means of strengthening the administration of the law, both with regard to age of marriage and age of consent without marriage?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am aware of the figures cited by the hon. Member. The questions of the marriage age and the age of consent are constantly under
the consideration of the Government of India and I do not consider it necessary to give any directions on the subject.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what would be the effect on the matter referred to in the question if the proposals of the Government were carried into effect?

Sir S. HOARE: I have said in my answer that the questions of the marriage age and the age of consent are constantly under the consideration of the Government of India.

BURMA (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Burma Legislative Council has yet reached a decision on the issue of separation from or federation with India under the proposed new constitution; and whether any delegates from Burma have been or are to be invited to attend the meetings of the joint parliamentary committee?

Sir S. HOARE: The special session called to give the Burma Legislative Council a further opportunity of reaching a decision on the question of separation or federation ended on Saturday last without any vote having been taken.

Mr. JONES: Is it not the case, technically, as no decision was reached, that we have still to regard Burma as being part of India, and, in that case would not the Burmese people be entitled to representation on the Joint Select Committee?

Sir S. HOARE: I think that I had better await the report of the proceedings of the Council and the Governor's comments upon them before I give an answer to that question.

Mr. JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a cable to-day, as some hon. Members have received, protesting against the prorogation of the Council before a decision has been taken on this matter?

Sir S. HOARE: I have not received a protest, but I have received some communications from Burma which show that with one single exception all the leaders of the principal parties in the Burma Council were in favour of the termination of the debate.

Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I hold in my hand now a cable received this morning indicating that 46 members of the Council object to the procedure?

Sir S. HOARE: I think I must await the official correspondence on the debate.

BENGAL PUBLIC SECURITY ACP (ARRESTS).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Congress leaders and workers who were arrested in Calcutta during the Congress week under the Bengal Public Security Act were not charged with any crime, were detained in the presidency gaol for over a week and during that time treated as C class under-trial prisoners, were denied the privilege of interviews with their friends, and that letters written by them from gaol were not delivered to the addressees; and whether he will give instructions to prevent a recurrence of such treatment?

Sir S. HOARE: Numerous persons intending to hold a Session of Congress in Calcutta on the 1st April were detained under Section 3 of the Bengal Public Security Act and afterwards released, the releases commencing on the 2nd April. Those detained were aware that the Government of India had announced that the meeting could not be allowed and that steps would be taken to stop persons proposing to attend. I fully approve the policy adopted by the Government of Bengal.

Mr. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the question as to whether these people, upon whom final judgment has not been passed, may have some treatment other than Class C?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The question refers to a number of people who were arrested temporarily. The classification to which he refers is applicable to convicted prisoners.

PRISONERS.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will make a statement regarding the health of the Meerut prisoners; and whether he will consider granting them the privileges accorded to Class A prisoners pending the hearing of the
appeal against the verdict under which they are now detained in prison?

The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): My latest report from the Government of India, dated 28th March, states that all the prisoners were in good health. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 2nd March to the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter).

Mr. GRENFELL: Does not the hon. Member believe that it will be of very great advantage, not only to the men concerned, but to the reputation of this country, if generosity is shown to these people at the present time?

Mr. BUTLER: The prisoners have already been placed in Class B by the local government on purpose, and every facility is being given to them to prepare their appeal.

DÉTENUS (DEPENDANTS).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the financial distress of many families whose breadwinners are in prison without trial; and whether the question of allowances to the families of détenus is being considered by the Government of India?

Mr. BUTLER: Allowances are paid to the families of détenus, if dependent upon them, and are assessed individually on the basis of the family's needs and its other sources of income. I have no reason to suppose that any special action by the Government of India is required.

GERMANY.

Mr. LAWSON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total membership of the German steel-helmets and Nazi storm-troop organisations; whether he is aware that these troops can be quickly diverted to military activities; and what action he proposes, in view of the existence of this number of potential military effectives beyond what is allowed to Germany under the peace treaty?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): As regards the first part of this question, I have no precise official information re-
garding the total membership of these organisations. As regards the second and third parts, the hon. Member will be aware that the question of potential military effectives is now under discussion by the Disarmament Conference.

Mr. LAWSON: Is this particular subject of German effectives under discussion? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Government's policy is in this matter?

Sir J. SIMON: The whole question comes within the discussion of one of the Articles of the Draft Convention which is now being discussed at Geneva.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman threaten to cancel the trade agreement with Germany?

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask whether any steps will be taken by the Government pending a decision of the Disarmament Conference, or are these effectives to be piled up meanwhile?

Mr. LAWSON: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of men called up for compulsory labour service in Germany; and whether he is aware that it is proposed to merge these labour conscipts into military units?

Sir J. SIMON: I am not aware that anyone has yet been called up under the compulsory labour service scheme recently announced in Germany to come into force on the 1st of January, 1934, nor that this scheme involves such a proposal as that mentioned in the second part of the question.

AMERICAN LIBERTY BONDS (BRITISH HOLDERS).

Colonel BURTON: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the decision of the American Government to pay foreign holders of Liberty Bonds in currency which is not based upon a Gold Standard value; and whether he is prepared to make representations to the American Government with a view to obviating loss to British holders?

Sir J. SIMON: I am not aware of any specific decision regarding Liberty Bonds, but in any case I do not think that it would be profitable to make representa-
tions to the United States Government on this matter at the present time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any difference between what the American Government propose to do and what the Canadian Government have done?

CHINA (KIDNAPPED BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR - WEDDER-BURN: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any further statement on the position of the Newchang prisoners; and what is his latest information about them?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the latest information in regard to the three British officers kidnapped from the steamer "Nanchang" in April?

Sir J. SIMON: Since the answer given on the 1st May to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burnley (Vice-Admiral Campbell), the work of coordinating the various efforts that are being made to effect the release of the captives has been entrusted to the head of the Provincial Government Police at Mukden. My information is that this official is actively engaged on his task, but that no positive result has yet been achieved. I am informed that there is no truth in the report which has appeared in the Press that one of the prisoners had been killed in the course of a fight between the band in whose hands they are and another band of brigands.

INDO-CHINA (INDIAN BANKERS, EXPULSION).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the result of the representations made on behalf of the Government of India by the British Ambassador in Paris to the French Government regarding the expulsion of Indian bankers by the Government of Indo-China?

Sir J. SIMON: The representations made by His Majesty's Ambassador in Paris were not successful as regards obtaining the postponement of the orders of expulsion against the four Indian bankers who were deported from Indo-
China at the end of March. I have not heard that any further expulsions have since taken place, but further representations are being made on the whole subject.

Mr. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the House the reasons why these people were expelled?

Sir J. SIMON: The matter is under dispute, and, as I say, further representations are being made.

WATERLOO BATTLEFIELD (PRESERVATION).

Sir W. DAVISON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now received a report from His Majesty's Ambassador at Brussels with regard to the proposal to erect houses on the field of Waterloo; and what is the purport of the same?

Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Ambassador at Brussels has reported that a Private Bill has been laid before the Chamber of Representatives for the purpose of abrogating the law of the 26th of March, 1914, preserving the battlefield of Waterloo from building operations. The matter is under the consideration of the Belgian Government, and His Majesty's Ambassador will keep me informed of developments.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not the fact that on Thursday last this Bill was rejected by the Belgian Parliament?

Sir J. SIMON: I have no official knowledge of it, but, in that case, I hope the hon. Member is satisfied.

Sir W. DAVISON: I am asking my right hon. Friend if he has any confirmation of it?

Mr. HANNON: Will not His Majesty's Government indicate to the Belgian Government that this would be a very undesirable thing?

Sir J. SIMON: I think that my answer is satisfactory to the House. The matter is under the consideration of the Belgian Government, who are primarily concerned, but our Ambassador is keeping me informed.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) ACT.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 15.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will reconsider his decision with regard to the restrictions on the operation of Sections 14 and 16 of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act, 1931, in view of Circular 1,316 of the Ministry of Health to local authorities?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I am afraid there is nothing I can add to the reply given to the question put to me by the hon. Member on 16th March.

BACON PRICES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 17.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the price of bacon per cwt., home and imported, respectively, prior to the operation of the quota system and at the present time?

Mr. THORNE: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the price of Danish bacon per cwt. prior to the operation of the quota restrictions; and what is the present price per cwt.?

Major ELLIOT: In October, 1932, the average wholesale price of first quality British (Wiltshire cut sides) green bacon was 75s. 6d. per cwt.; first quality Danish green bacon averaged 59s. and first quality Dutch green bacon 50s. per cwt. The corresponding prices for April, 1933, were 100s., 77s. and 68s. per cwt. respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ARGENTINE (JUTE IMPORTS).

Miss HORSBRUGH: 14.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the total imports of jute goods into the Argentine in the years 1931 and 1932; and what proportion of that import were jute goods manufactured in the United Kingdom?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As the answer includes a number of figures I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

STATEMENT showing the imports of the undermentioned jute manufactures into the Argentine Republic during the years 1931 and 1932, distinguishing the share of the United Kingdom, so far as possible.


Argentine Republic.
1931.
1932.


Total Imports.
Imports from United Kingdom.
Total Imports.
Imports from United Kingdom.


Kilogs.
Gold pesos (tariff values).
Kilogs.
Gold pesos (tariff values).
Kilogs.
Gold pesos (tariff values).
Kilogs.
Gold pesos (tariff values).


Jute, spun, for the manufacture of plaits
3,063,569
392,137
1,260,059
161,288
3,958,588
506,699
Not yet published.


Jute yarn for weaving
28,424
4,548
Not published.
Not yet published.


Tissues of jute or pita— Unbleached called burlap or sail cloth
31,427,146
7,542,515
2,267,309
544,154
70,717,389
19,758,291


Burlap—


Dyed or coloured
44,013
11,972
43,547
11,845
Not yet published.


Unbleached for stiffening clothing
138,234
66,353
5,914
2,839


Bleached called burlap or sail cloth
7
2
Not published.


Other tisanes of jute or pita
13,125
16,846


Sacks of unbleached pita, burlap or cloth
1,657,229
424,250
420,806
107,726
4,349,088
1,198,959


Sacks of burlap, tarred or oiled, for the transport of coal.
2,902
1,161
Not published.
Not yet published.


NOTE 1.—Imports in 1931 from "British Possessions" include the following:—

Kilogs.
Gold Pesos (tariff values).


Jute, spun, for the manufacture of plaits
…
…
…
…
…
1,747,651
223,699


Unbleached tissues, called burlap or sail cloth
…
…
…
…
…
26,032,312
6,247,755


Sacks of unbleached pita, burlap or cloth
…
…
…
…
…
1,071,354
274,267


NOTE 2.—Imports in 1931 were at a low level owing, it is stated, to the existence of large stocks. Imports of burlap or sail cloth tissues in 1930 totalled 69,144,931 kilogs, and in 1929 were 113,523,821 kilogs.

ANGLO-DANISH AGREEMENT (FELT HATS).

Captain DOWER: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present rate of duty on British and Italian felt hats imported into Denmark; and what will be the difference, if any, between these rates after the Anglo-Danish Trade Agreement is brought into force?

Lieut. - Colonel COLVILLE: The present duty on felt hats imported into Denmark is 20 per cent. ad valorem subject to a minimum charge which varies from 30 to 105 oere per hat according to the class of hat. These rates are increased by a tenth if the hat has a silk ribbon or lining. In accordance with the Anglo-Danish Commercial Agreement the duty is not to exceed 150 oere per hat. This involves a reduction of duty on the more expensive hats in which the United Kingdom interest is most considerable. These duties apply equally to British and Italian hats.

IMPORTS (EMPIRE CONTENT).

Mr. PIKE: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the considerable injury to British manufacturers upon the home and Dominion markets caused by the inadequacy of the 50 per cent. datum line established by the Order of 1st April; and whether he is able to state at what period the industries concerned can expect a fulfilment of the promise that the percentage would be raised where satisfactory evidence of injury had been submitted?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I presume my hon. Friend is referring to the Regulations which came into force on 1st April requiring certain classes of goods imported from the Empire to contain a minimum of 50 per cent. of Empire materials and labour in order to qualify for Imperial preference. I am aware that certain trades consider that this requrement is too low for their particular circumstances, but my right hon. Friend must be given time to observe the effect of the new Regulations, which have only been in force a month, before considering applications for the variation of the percentage, either upwards or downwards, in respect of particular goods.

Mr. PIKE: Over what period is this "reasonable time" likely to extend?

Dr. BURGIN: Obviously, as we are dealing with particular trades, one estimate of time would probably not be sufficient, but in any event my right hon. Friend means several months by "reasonable time."

Mr. PIKE: Is it not a fact that the trades concerned were assured that, if they discovered that 50 per cent. was insufficient and submitted evidence to that effect, an additional supplementary order would be made immediately to cover what was required?

Dr. BURGIN: That depends entirely on the nature of the evidence.

FISHING INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS).

Mr. LAW: 16.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the question of the Government's policy in regard to fisheries?

Major ELLIOT: Yes, Sir. The Government have decided to introduce legislation providing for regulating supplies of fish coming on to the market in Great Britain and to combine this with Regulations as to size of mesh used and size of fish landed designed to combat the growing evil of over-fishing in the North Sea and other areas near Great Britain as to which many complaints have repeatedly been made. At the same time it is intended to afford facilities for the reorganisation of the fishing industry of this country.
It is proposed that foreign supplies shall be regulated quantitatively. It is proposed to regulate the size of mesh used in British vessels so as to facilitate the escape of under-sized fish, thereby contributing towards the more economic development of the fishing grounds. Size limits below which certain classes of fish will not be permitted to be landed or sold in this country will be prescribed and made applicable. This would apply to both British and foreign-caught supplies. Arrangements are contemplated with a view to restricting landings of fish from some of the more distant fishing grounds (which are at all times relatively of poor quality) at seasons of the year when supplies from these regions are surplus to normal requirements of the market.
It is further intended to set up a Reorganisation Commission for the purpose of drafting proposals for reorganisation to he laid before and considered by the industry. These proposals have been communicated to the countries chiefly interested, and are being elaborated by the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself in consultation with the various interests concerned, and I hope to be in a position to introduce the necessary legislation at an early date.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Do the Government propose to make provision so that the discharge of oil around our coasts shall be prevented, in order that fishing may not be damaged?

Major ELLIOT: Those are points of detail which need to be considered when we come to the actual terms of the legislation.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: Would the Minister remember the interests of the herring fishing industry which is an export industry and may be severely injured by these proposals to limit the supply of fish?

Major ELLIOT: I certainly believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has the interests of the herring fishing industry closely at heart.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Having regulated and restricted the imports of fish, is it intended to take any steps to organise the sale of fish, so as to ensure that poor people shall not be denied this article of food?

Major ELLIOT: Of course, we are making preparations to afford facilities for the reorganisation of the fishing industry in this country.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does that imply that a scheme for marketing the restricted quanties that will be available will be taken in hand in connection with the reorganization?

Major ELLIOT: We shall consider all those things.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think we had better wait for the Bill.

DON VALLEY (FLOODS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 18.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the estimated cost of each of the three floods in Bentley and the Don Valley during the last 18 months; and can he state what progress has been made with any scheme to prevent further floods?

Major ELLIOT: I am aware that great damage was caused by the floods to which the hon. Member refers and that consequently substantial losses were incurred by persons living within the flooded areas. With regard to the second part of the question, I understand that the Yorkshire Ouse Catchment Board have under consideration a comprehensive drainage scheme for the River Don now that the Doncaster Drainage Bill has passed into law.

Mr. WILLIAMS: As the chairman of the local authority estimates that the loss on each of the three occasions was £40,000, will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the Ouse Catchment Board to expedite the provision of a scheme so as to avoid a possible repetition of the floods in the coining autumn?

Major ELLIOT: Yes, I am sure that the Ouse Catchment Board fully realise the great necessity for urgency in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

EMPIRE RADIO-TELEGIUMS (RATES).

Mr. ANSTRUTHIER-GRAY: 20.
asked the Postmaster-General why the general rates for Empire radio-telegrams have been increased; and why the special cheap week-end rates have been discontinued?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The general rates for Empire radio-telegrams have not been increased. The International Telegraph Conference held at Madrid last autumn decided on the unification of letter-telegram services with countries outside Europe. Under the scheme adopted a uniform rate of out-third of the full rate has, with a few exceptions, been applied to these services. It is unfortunate that the scheme has resulted in certain increases of rates and in the withdrawal of the specially low rates for week-end
letter-telegrams; but in view of the representations made by the telegraph companies of the world, the Conference decided that, under present conditions, the maintenance of these low rates could not be justified.

SALARY CUTS.

Mr. DAVID MASON: 21.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the action of certain industrial companies in restoring the cuts in the salaries of their employés, His Majesty's Government propose to follow this example in the case of the employés in the Post Office?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, on 7th February.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that, if the whole of the cuts were restored, the Post Office would still be making a profit?

FAVERSHAM (LETTER DELIVERIES).

Mr. MAITLAND: 22.
asked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been drawn to the inconvenience occasioned by undue delay in delivery of letters in Faversham; and if he will take such steps as are necessary to prevent a continuance of the delay?

Sir K. WOOD: I have received representations on this matter from a firm in Faversham. I much regret the inconvenience occasioned and have had steps taken to obviate, so far as practicable, the delay to which my hon. Friend refers.

SUB-OFFICES (ATTACKS).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST (for Mr. HALL-CAINE): 19.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of raids carried out by bandits upon sub-post offices during the past financial year; the aggregate unrecoverable loss involved; and how many Post Office officials were injured or killed in consequence?

Sir K. WOOD: During the past financial year there have been 23 cases of attack upon sub-post offices. The loss is approximately £153. No Post Office official was killed. In six cases sub-postmasters or their assistants received injuries, fortunately for the most part of a minor character.

Mr. LOGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make any provision for firearms for the protection of post offices; or, if not, is he prepared to consider some such provision?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not propose to answer that specific question, because I think that, whatever precautions we take at the Post Office, it is best not to make them public.

BROADCASTING (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 23.
asked the Postmaster-General whether private broadcasting exchanges are allowed, under his licences, to distribute advertising matter disseminated from foreign stations?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on the 20th March to my hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine).

COMPANIES ACT.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTANDOYLE: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the Abchurch Lane Finance Company, Limited, heard at the Mansion House Justice Room, on 12th April, 1933, in which it was proved that a prospectus was issued inviting the public to subscribe £350,000 for a property which had cost £41,600, and that there was over £200,000 worth of worthless underwriting; and will he say what steps he is taking to prevent a repetition of similar frauds on the public while the Companies Act of 1929 remains unamended, in view of the reduction of stamp duties on companies' capital facilitating the flotation of limited liability concerns?

Dr. BURGIN: The case is still before the courts, and while that is so I can make no statement in connection with it.

ROYAL SEAMEN'S PENSION FUND.

Sir M. WOOD: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the governing body of the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund have in many instances refused to entertain from seamen new or
amended applications for pensions; and if lie will state why the governing body has refused permission to amend such applications?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I have communicated with the Governing Body of the Royal Seamen's Pensions Fund on this matter and will write to the hon. Member as soon as I have their reply.

Sir M. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an undertaking that no seaman will be informed that his application has been finally determined without an explicit reason being given for the final determination?

Sir H. YOUNG: That seems to me to be somewhat beyond my function. If the hon. Member will wait until I have communicated the reply, perhaps it will be more of an advantage.

DISTRESSED AREAS (RATE BURDEN).

Mr. THORNE: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can make a statement at an early date in regard to relief for distressed areas; and whether he has received any protests from non-distressed areas with regard to the anticipated alteration of the block grant?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have arranged to discuss this matter this week with representatives of the Central Associations of local authorities concerned and the London County Council. Representations have been made to me on behalf of certain areas with low poundage rates and these will be given due weight in the discussions.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any measure for increased rates in rural areas will be most strenuously opposed?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir; of that I am well aware.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it true that the well-to-do areas have refused to accede?

Sir H. YOUNG: No, I do not think that that is the case.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is it not the case that those are the economical areas?

Mr. THORNE: When the right hon. Gentleman is making this alteration concerning the block grant, is it intended to make it obligatory or voluntary?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member should await the result of the negotiations to which I have just referred.

UNEMPLOYMENT (SEASONAL WORKERS).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, with the start of the holiday season, he will consider the desirability of instructing Employment Exchanges once more to warn seasonal workers of their position under the Unemployment Insurance Acts?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave him on 6th April.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (DISCIPLINE AND PROMOTION).

Mr. STOURTON: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent he intends to implement the recommendations contained in the report of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner with regard to discipline and promotion to the higher ranks?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): It would not be possible to give this information within the limits of a reply to a Parliamentary Question, but, as I informed the House on the 4th instant, I propose to issue shortly a White Paper on this subject.

Mr. STOURTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately when legislation will be introduced?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope very shortly.

COST-OF-LIVING INDEX FIGURES.

Mr. THORNE: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the price of bread is to be increased by ½d. per 4-lb. loaf on 8th May, 1933; whether such increases are taken into account when calculating the cost-of-living figures published in the Labour Gazette; and by how
many points, if any, the cost-of-living figures will rise by the increase in the price of bread?

Mr. HUDSON: I have seen reports in the Press to the effect that the price of bread in London is to be raised by ½d. per 4-lb. as from 8th May. The official cost-of-living index number is computed only at monthly intervals, and the figure to be published in the May issue of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" will relate to 1st May; if, however, the increased price continues in operation until 1st June, it will be taken into account when the index figure for that date is calculated. If there were, over the country as a whole, an increase of one ½d. per 4-lb. loaf, this would cause a rise in the index number of approximately three-quarters of a point.

ROAD ACCIDENTS (BICYCLES).

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 36.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has any information to show how many road accidents during 1932 were attributable in part or in whole to inefficient rear reflectors on bicycles?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret the information asked for in the question is not available.

Sir G. FOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman have inquiries made as to the number of these accidents which are caused by the reflector being fitted on the near side of the bicycle?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No doubt such accidents may occur from time to time, but it is very difficult to get very full information on this subject.

HORSES (EXPORTS).

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 38.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the memorandum sent to him entitled "A Plea for our Wild Ponies," issued by the National League against the Export of Horses for Butchery, which gives specific instances of cruelty to and suffering by unbroken moor and forest ponies in this country; and whether he will take steps to prevent any future occurrences of a like nature?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have seen the memorandum entitled "A Plea for our Wild Ponies," as issued by the National League against the Export of Horses for Butchery, and I am causing inquiries to be made in the matter.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (TRAVELLING VOUCHERS).

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: 39.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in order to encourage coastal shipping, he will arrange for the railway vouchers now issued to Members to be available also for journeys to and from their constituencies by boat?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Facilities already exist for travel by sea where this is necessary to enable Members to visit their constituencies, as, for example, in the case of Ulster, the Orkneys and the Western Isles, but there would appear to be no sufficient justification for making such provision in cases where speedier railway facilities are also available. The general extension of the voucher system in the manner suggested would moreover involve comprehensive arrangements with shipping companies and I doubt whether they would further in any way the object stated in the question.

Mr. FOOT: As steamship fares are much lower than railway fares, would not the suggestion mean an economy to the State?

Mr. HORS-BELISHA: No, Sir.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the advantage of Members travelling by coastal services would outweigh the disadvantage of the extra tax on oil?

Mr. THORNE: What will the Government save by the reduction of railway fares to Members of the House?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It would depend on the extent to which the facilities suggested were used, but it is hardly credible that hon. Members would spend two or three days making a voyage when they could get to their constituencies in two or three hours.

Mr. THORNE: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that the railway companies
have now reduced fares to a penny a mile? What saving will that be to the Government?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is another question.

Mr. RONALD ROSS: Will the hon. Gentleman inform Scottish Members that if they travel by boat they will not be allowed for sleeping accommodation or cabins, according to the ordinary warrants issued to the Ulster Members?

WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE (TARIFF TRUCE).

Mr. PIKE: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the expressed intention of the United States of America to seek a. complete tariff truce during the sitting of the World Economic Conference, he will state what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards this proposal; and if he will give an assurance that no such agreement will be entered into without the consent of this House having previously been obtained?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): With reference to the first part of the question, I have nothing to add at present to the statement which I made on this subject on Thursday last. As regards the second part, an opportunity can arise for a discussion if it be required on a Vote of Supply for the Department concerned.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLIES (HOME PRODUCTION).

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 30.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Liverpool City Council to purchase matches and pencils of foreign manufacture instead of British, although the difference in cost is small; and whether, in order to promote British industries, he will consider the desirability of issuing a new circular to local authorities urging them to give preference to home-produced goods?

Sir H. YOUNG: My attention has not been specially drawn to this matter, but I would refer to the reply to a question on the subject given on 3rd April last by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education and to the replies given to
similar questions on the 14th and 16th March last. The purchases did not require my sanction.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (CONVICTION, HAILSHAM).

Sir R. GOWER: 37.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the conviction at Hailsham Petty Sessions on Wednesday, 3rd May, of John Henry Everitt, for cruelty to a dog, to the sentence of imprisonment given him, and to the complaint of the presiding justice that the bench could not sentence an offender like Everitt, who had been five times previously convicted of cruelty, to be flogged; and whether, as similar complain-is have recently been made by other courts, he will now consider instituting legislation authorising courts to impose sentences of corporal punishment upon each offenders?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have seen Press reports to the effect mentioned in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. RHYS: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to pay an early visit to Geneva for the purpose of attending the Disarmament Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: Whether I should or should not return to the Disarmament Conference I have never considered and I wish to take this opportunity to assure the House that statements published in certain newspapers not only that I have considered it myself but that the matter has been discussed by the Cabinet are pure invention without even the excuse of a shadow for a foundation.

CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE SOCIETY (MR. MACQUISTEN'S SPEECH).

Mr. LANSBURY: I desire to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the following passage from the OFFICIAL REPORT, in a speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) in Committee of Ways and Means, on 26th April:
I would like to ask the present First Lord of the Admiralty haw long the First Lord of the Admiralty in the Labour Government was before he turned over the contracts for margarine and butter to the Co-operative Wholesale Society?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1933; cols. 230–231, Vol. 277.]
I desire to ask whether this aspersion upon the conduct of an ex-Member of this House, who is still a Member of the Privy Council, at a time when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, is in order? May I also ask what course, if any, is open to Mr. Alexander, or to any Member of this House, to ensure that, failing the withdrawal of the allegation, the hon. and learned Member for Argyll shall produce the evidence upon which the allegation is founded?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I desire to say this: When a member or chairman of a great corporation takes public office and is going to return to it, and then a great order goes to his corporation, people are apt to draw conclusions. I drew a conclusion. It has been denied, and I promptly accept the denial. I have no hesitation in doing so. At the same time, I would like my right hon. Friend to give me another denial. Is it the case that the Dartmouth Naval College reverted or went to the Co-operative Society?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and learned Member wishes to make a personal explanation, he is entitled to do so, but he must not bring into his personal explanation extraneous matters.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Very well, Sir. I thought it was a perfectly justifiable allusion. I may be wrong, and I have no hesitation whatever in withdrawing it, but I merely say this, that it seems to me extraordinary that such resentment should be attached to it. I also made another statement at the same time with regard to co-operative purchases. I have seen the person who told me about it, and he adheres to his statement. I see that the directors—

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order—

Mr. SPEAKER: I have told the hon. and learned Member what is open to him, that if he wishes to make a personal statement, he can do so, but that he
must not enter into matters extraneous to those raised in the right hon. Member's question to me.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: This is all part of the same speech. I made a certain statement with regard to suggested cooperative purchases of automatic machines. The same thing has been raised and the same defiance has been made, and it has been published in the Press. I am told now that the Co-operative Society has denied the butter. I am very glad, because it would have been Russian butter, but they have got the margarine contract.

Mr. SPEAKER: The only question raised by the right hon. Gentleman was in regard to a passage in the hon. and learned Member's speech. We must deal with one question at a time.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The right hon. Gentleman picks and chooses, but I want the subject dealt with as a whole. He takes out one particular technical slip.

Mr. LANSBURY: I understand that the hon. and learned Member withdraws the allegation that my right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty altered the contracts for margarine and butter in favour of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. If I understand him to say that he withdraws that allegation, I am quite satisfied. With regard to the other matter that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises, he is being challenged to make the statement outside, where it can be taken up.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: All that I say is that, if I am assured by the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of Mr. Alexander, that he did not interfere with that contract, then I accept that statement unqualifiedly. I take Mr. Alexander's word for it at once. That is all I say. As for the balance of the thing, here is the Press full of the Newcastle case, where they are sending co-operatives to gaol in platoons for fraud.

Mr. SPEAKER: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition whether he accepts the explanation of the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), in which case it is not necessary for me to answer his question.

Mr. LANSBURY: As I understand it, the hon. and learned Member wishes to put the onus on me of either proving or disproving the very discreditable statement that he made about a member of His Majesty's Privy Council. All that I ask is that the hon. and learned Member shall either himself give the proof that led him to make the statement or withdraw it in an unqualified manner.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have accepted the denial, which is a complete withdrawal, and that is quite sufficient.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman want me to answer his question?

Mr. LANSBURY: I shall be glad if you will do so, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the first part of the question, the incident to which reference is made took place when the House was in Committee, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will realise that it is not for me to say whether anything that took place in the House on that occasion was in order or not. The question of order in that case must rest with the Chairman. I may say, however, in reply to the general question, as a general ruling, that it is not actually out of order, except in certain specified cases, to cast aspersions on persons who are not Members of this House. That is more a matter of taste and judgment. As regards the second part of the question, Mr. Alexander is no longer a Member of this House, and I can therefor offer no suggestion as to what, if any, action he may choose to take. With regard to any hon. Member of this House, it is open to him to put down a Motion, and it is for the House to decide what action the House may take in the matter.

Mr. LANSBURY: In thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for your Ruling, I may say that I will consult with my friends as to the best form of Motion that we can put on. the Paper, but I would ask you, with reference to the statement that you have just made, that allegations may be made, either in good or bad taste or good or bad judgment, reflecting on persons outside the House, whether that Ruling covers members of that most honourable body His Majesty's Privy Council, whether a member of the Privy Council
could remain a member of the Privy Council sitting under the sort of charge of corruption that the hon. and learned Member made.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I made no charge of corruption—none whatever.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member asks me a question with regard to what I said, that aspersions can be made on people who are not Members of this House, with certain specified exceptions. There are, as he knows, a good many classes of persons on whom aspersions cannot be made, such as His Majesty's Judges, but the present case is not one of those exceptions.

Mr. LANSBURY: So that a member of the Privy Council, someone who can advise the King, does not come within that exception?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is so.

Mr. THORNE: If I make a charge against a Member of this House, or anyone outside, and it is found to be wrong, is it not a moral obligation on me to apologise?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asks me a general question. Certainly, he would have to do so in the case of a Member of this House.

Mr. HANNON: Would it not be more in conformity with the dignity of this House if the whole question were forgotten?

Mr. LANSBURY: You would not forget it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: If the Motion to suspend the Eleven O'clock Rule is carried, how far does the Prime Minister propose to go to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Eleven O'clock Rule is being suspended in order to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Estimates so that the House may go formally into Committee of Supply. It is also proposed to-day to consider a Motion for an Address for the appointment of a judge in the King's Bench Division, and to take the Report stage of the Exchange Equalisation Account Money Resolution. Both those items, however, are exempted business.
Three Orders under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, which are on the Paper, will also be moved to-night.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1933.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Captain Margesson.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

3.33 p.m.

Viscount ELMLEY: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof the words:
this House appreciates the valuable work of bodies and persons engaged in local government and is of opinion that His Majesty's Government should keep closely under review the difficulties experienced by local authorities, particularly in rural areas with diminished rateable resources, in dealing with the problems arising from the relief of the unemployed agricultural worker, and the provision of adequate systems of water supply and sewerage.
In a book which I read recently I found that local government was defined as the gentle art of living together, but it will be admitted that it is a far more difficult art than many people suppose. All the aspects of local government have this in common, that they revolve round the Local Government Act of 1929 like planets revolving round the sun. Today's Debate, therefore, must largely follow the same orbit. I would like to put forward one or two questions from the point of view of the rural authorities and to divide my speech into two parts, taking first the things which local authorities can in a large measure do for themselves with a modicum of assistance from the Government, and, second, financial matters for which more Government help is needed. Among the things which local authorities can do for themselves there will be general agreement that it is of first-rate importance that we should have a first-class water supply throughout the country. No words of mine are needed to emphasise that fact in view of its importance from the point of view of health and general convenience.
From the point of view of health, we had a terrible example not long ago at Mahon in Yorkshire of what can happen to people when the water supply becomes
contaminated. Recently I was in the Norfolk and Norwich hospital and was shown a big collection of stones which had been cut out of unfortunate people at various times, and the reason attributed for the commonness of that complaint was the hardness of the water. From the point of view of convenience, we need to live in a house which has no water supply and then in a house that has a supply to appreciate the great difference it makes to life. It is important, too, to the agriculturist. For instance, for a dairy farmer it is essential to have a good water supply in order that he can keep everything nice and clean and tidy. At the present time there are several reasons why progress ought to be made in this matter and attention paid to it. The cost of constructional work has much diminished recently, and I do not think that it is generally known that a parish can get a grant from the general purposes fund of a district council, which it was unable to get before the Local Government Act of 1929. That is one of the good changes which that Act made. That point is well worth remembering now because the Unemployment Grants Committee, from which grants could previously be obtained, has to all intents and purposes closed down.
The report of the Ministry of Health for 1932 says that in many rural areas conditions are most unsatisfactory, and in the last report issued by the medical officer of health for Norfolk it is stated that in that county water is mainly obtained from shallow wells which are liable to pollution. I hope that the points that I have made show that this problem is urgent, and it is not so expensive to solve as some of the problems which we have in front of us. This is an additional reason why steps should be taken immediately, and I suggest that if any district council wants to benefit the people in its area, and wants to do so without spending a great deal of money, they might do much worse than make a survey of all the sources of water supply in their area and inexpensively improve them. Obviously, the most convenient type of water supply is the piped supply, but unfortunately that it not always possible, especially in scattered districts where there are comparatively few people. On the other hand, I see in the report which the Minister of Health issued some time ago on the subject of
water supplies in rural districts that there are many large villages with a stationary population which have no reliable supply in times of drought and that always of a doutbful quality.
Sometimes it is found that water companies are very slow to extend their area of supply on their own initiative, even when their income is guaranteed and when clearly they ought to do so. I suggest, therefore, that if their income is guaranteed, within, say, six months, they should be compelled to extend their supply where they have taken powers to do so. I would like to ask the Minister a question which has been addressed to me by several people about the operation of water supply companies. If a body of people feel that they are being charged too much for their water, is there anything that they can do about it? Can they appeal to the Minister of Health or get some impartial body to look into their complaint and to make some recommendation with a view to seeing that justice is done to them? Another good reason for having a piped supply is that it will attract builders. A builder will feel far more disposed to put up houses in a place if he knows that there is a good water supply.
Recently I had the advantage of being shown what the City of Chester is doing in providing an up-to-date water supply, and I cannot help feeling that what they have done is worthy of special commendation and that it could be followed with great advantage by a number of places, even on a smaller scale. The water is taken from the River Dee, and is pumped a distance of 1½ miles to a place where it goes through four different stages of purification. A substance which looks like a compound of sulphur and alum is first added, it then goes through quick-acting filters and through slow-acting filters, and finally a small quantity of chlorine is added to the water before it is stored in the reservoir. This is a somewhat elaborate plant, put up at a cost of £60,000, for the City of Chester is a big city, and it is possible for the water company to carry out such an undertaking, but I feel there are many smaller places in this country situated by the side of a river where something of the same kind could be done at a much lower cost.
The main trouble about providing a water supply is finance. As far as one
can see at present, water supply must be a local rather than a national service. I understand that some of my hon. Friends who will follow me this afternoon have much greater technical knowledge than I have, and I do hope this aspect of the matter will be brought out, and that we may have the advantage of learning whether it would be possible to get a water supply more on a national scale than it is at present. The farthest we have gone in that direction so far appears to be in the case of Manchester, which gets its water from the Lake District, 50 miles away, and Birmingham, which gets its water from the Welsh hills, 70 miles away, and these in themselves are a kind of grid schemes. I am sure the House would be glad to hear whether we could extend that system to a wider area. The charges involved in providing a good water supply seem to me to be quite reasonable, and not beyond the capacity of many people to pay. The report of the Ministry of Health on the provision of water supplies suggested that the best way was to rate a parish as a whole, and to rate individual consumers more highly, and stated that it worked out at a charge of less than 1d. per day for each house and 6s. a year each inhabitant. I think that is quite reasonable.
Other sources of supply—wells and rainwater—are more primitive, and need special care and supervision, which they have not had so far. Pollution must be prevented, and it is where water is obtained from wells and rain-water that the local authorities can do most. Public wells should be encouraged in small villages, because they will be better constructed and maintained than private ones, and it will not be beyond the financial capacity of people to pay for them. Only water which is perfect should be charged for. If there is one good public well in a village, the others, if not in good condition, should be closed. Private wells are often very unsatisfactory. I believe that under the Act of 1878 the local authorities could close up a great many wells if they were so minded. On the other hand, referring to what I said a moment or two ago, I think they could inexpensively improve a good many wells. It does not cost much to put a parapet round a well or instal filters, to put a concrete surface round it
or substitute a pump for a bucket. Such things do not cost much, but they do improve the water supply to certain extent. Rain-water is used a good deal throughout the country, and I understand there is no evidence whatever of ill-health being caused by its use. Here storage is the main problem. A house of average size, containing, say, five people, wants storage for at least 1,000 gallons, a quantity which could last that house 40 days in case no more rain fell. The bylaws relating to the construction of the tank, its size and situation ought to be more often enforced by local authorities.
To sum up on this important question, there is no shadow of doubt that in the future we ought to have regional planning as far as possible. Regional planning simply means this, that when a water supply is being installed it should not be designed with the object of supplying one place only, but those responsible ought to look around and see how many other places can be supplied at the same time. There was a scheme on those lines recently in the Wymondham district of Norfolk, under which they managed to supply several other places besides the central place. That sort of thing ought to be done on a bigger scale. I would like the Minister to tell us what progress has been made in this direction during the last year, and if he will encourage local authorities to work upon those lines. I should also like to know if he thinks it would be possible to have a regional committee, such as there are in one or two places in the Midlands, in a rather scattered county like Norfolk. If the Government would give a lead in this matter local authorities would follow it up, and a great deal of good would be accomplished.
The subject of water supply leads on to the questions of drainage and sewerage. There, the first necessity is a good water supply. If it came to a question of whether water supply or drainage is the more important, I should say that a good water supply ought to come first, because if it were afterwards decided to go on with a drainage system it would be found to be very much easier to do so. As in the case of water supply, a parish can obtain a grant for drainage work from the general purposes
fund of a local authority. I do not think it is generally known that a private person can put in a drainage scheme provided he does not disturb the public roads. Under the Act of 1929 an important change was made. Prior to that Act there was a limitation on the borrowing powers of the local authorities for sewerage schemes. I would like the Minister to tell us what progress has been made in consequence of the Act of 1929. Here, again, progress is very well worth while, because a higher and higher standard of drainage is being demanded, largely because of the Amenities provided in towns. We should do all we can to get better drainage throughout the country.
I do not propose to say very much about housing, because a great deal has been said about it in this House recently. The two Acts which affect us chiefly are the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, and the Housing Act, 1930. I was very glad to see that recently the Minister sent a very strong circular to all local authorities urging them to do their duty and to exercise their powers, which are considerable, under those two Acts. The last Report of the Ministry of Health says that the situation in the country would be better if those two Acts were carried out to the full. Nobody who takes a walk around the countryside will be very long before seeing that there is a great deal of room for improvement in many respects. Here, again, building costs are down and money is cheap. This seems to be the moment to go ahead.
I would like to give the House a very good instance of how I think the Act of 1926 could be applied. I received a complaint about the very bad state of a house, and I went to see it. I am afraid there are far worse things in, say, Newcastle, but this was quite bad enough. I found that there was a family of eight people, father, mother, three sons and three daughters, living in three rooms. Anybody of average height would find it impossible to stand upright in any of the rooms, and everything such as cooking, eating, washing, and so, on, had to be done in the small central room. There were, as I say, only three rooms, and one was for the men, one was the living room, and one was for the women. If, under the 1926 Act, even another room could be added to that house, it would make a great deal of difference to those people.
The house was not in such a bad state that it had to be pulled down; in fact, when I carried the matter further, I was like the fool rushing in where angels fear to tread. My idea was to get the house inspected by the medical officer of health with a view to having it condemned. The medical officer of health found that he could only condemn it on the ground that it was overcrowded, and, as a result, the local authority served a notice on the tenant to abate the nuisance of overcrowding. That did not do anybody any good, because the tenants were quite unable to get any other house, and matters still stand as they were. If, instead of serving that notice, the local authority had carried out their powers under the 1926 Act and had built even one more room, which could quite easily have been done, they would have made things very much better and more easy for that family. I take it that that is the kind of way in which the 1926 Act is expected to work. Of course, in the part of Norfolk which I know, there are a good many old houses built of wattle, daub or clay, and they are in such a state that if you tried to do anything to them they would fall down altogether. I do not see how under that, or under any other Act, you could put them into a proper condition.
I am sure that if the 1930 Act were carded out by the local authorities as it was meant to be it would do a great deal of good. One or two difficulties have presented themselves to my mind in connection with its working. I am informed that it is cheaper to build under the 1924 Act, unless the de-housed family consists of at least five people. Very often the houses are occupied by elderly people. There is no provision for the housing of overcrowded families under this Act, unless the houses themselves are unfit for human habitation. Then there is this point: In any improvement scheme under the 1930 Act, local authorities have power to buy land for the opening up of houses, but they have no power to charge any of the costs to the owner of the houses. The result is that the value of the property of the landlord is enhanced at the expense of the ratepayers, and that does not seem to be altogether right. Sometimes you find that the very situation of a house will cancel out any improvement that you make. You may find that the house abuts on to a road, and that
you cannot improve the house without taking up space which the tenant would be very glad of.
I mention these points because I believe that they are ways in which the 1930 Act may be improved. There is a, difficulty that the Minister might find himself up against. Everything depends, in these two Acts, upon the good will and the energy of the local authorities. Suppose that the Minister finds that certain local authorities, like the horses which you take down to the water and which will not drink, do nothing whatever about them? I know that he has circularised them, and in the majority of cases that will get the local authorities on the move, but it may be found tht some are not ready to do anything at all. We had a Debate on housing last winter, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health announced with great pride that it was now possible to build, without any subsidy, houses to let at 7s. 2d. a week. That is all very well for the urban dweller, but in the country we need houses to let at a sum not greater than 43. 6d. a week, including rates. That is absolutely essential.
I would like to give the House a practical illustration of how the cost of a house without a subsidy would work out. Down in Norfolk there was accepted recently a, tender for a five-roomed non-parlour house to cost £250, or £275 altogether, with land and legal charges. Subsidies under the 1924 Act, and the county council grant under the 1930 Act, enabled that house to be let to agricultural workers at 2s. 6d. a week, plus rates which came to 1s. 2d. or 1s. 3d. a week, or 3s. 9d. in all. Without that subsidy, the charges on a 60 years' loan would amount to about £12 3s. a year, plus about £4 for management and repairs and so on, a total of £16 3s. That would mean a rent of about 6s. 3d., or, with rates, 7s. 7d., which is a sum quite impossible for the agricultural worker to pay out of a wage of 30s.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Will the Noble Lord be so good as to give the area in which those houses are to be built?

Viscount ELMLEY: I will tell the hon. Member later, because I have not particulars with me. The houses that we want should let at a rent of between 3s. and 4s. 6d. a week to be of any use to the agricultural worker, and I hope
that the Ministry will bear those facts in mind.
I come to the more complicated of finance. There is a great deal of concern up and down the country to-day as to what is to be the position of a great many local authorities. For instance, I understand that Herefordshire, recently convened a meeting of other counties to be held in London to discuss their position during the next period of three years in which the formula will operate, which shows that they are alive to their position. There are, two assets—rates and Exchequer grants, but the surprising thing at first sight is that rates in a purely agricultural county like Norfolk should be the heaviest in England, and precisely the same as in Durham, which, I suppose, is one of the most industrial counties. In both cases they are 13s. 6d. in the £. There are some places in Wales, I believe, rated even more highly, but in the industrial parts of Wales I am sure they get such things as water, lighting, gas, and probably drainage thrown in, which we have not got at all.
Of course, the main reason for the high rates which we have is the low rateable value, which always means high rates, just as high rateable value means low rates. In Norfolk, for instance, a penny rate raises £4,248, while at the other end of the scale, in Middlesex, a penny rate raises £62,000. Another reason for the high rates is that big ratepayers, on account of conditions which exist at present, are leaving their houses which pay high rates, and are going elsewhere or moving into smaller houses. At this moment I can think of about six large houses around Norwich tenantless, paying no rates, whereas they used to pay quite a considerable sum. I think that that kind of thing, unfortunately, is happening all over the country. That is the reason why, I think, our rateable value does not increase.
With regard to the Exchequer grants, they are based on the formula, and are paid partly to the county council and partly to the district councils. With regard to the part which is paid to the county council, insured unemployment is a factor which is weighted, but we have serious uninsured unemployment in Norfolk. Last March, the latest for which figures are available, 13,216 people
were getting relief in one form or another, and of those 7,556 are dependent on unemployment relief. In round figures, that means that about 3,000 men without their families are affected. Those men comprise agricultural workers and share fishermen, for whom there is no unemployment benefit whatever, and, therefore, in respect of whom no Exchequer grant is paid. I know there is a seasonal drop in the figures between May and December, but that rather illustrates a point which I was going into later. One of the unfortunate effects of modern agriculture is that it becomes more casualised, and, indeed, that drop in the figure between May and December rises very acutely from January to April, and, I think, it rather proves that point. But in other parts of the country you find that both unemployment insurance benefit and transitional benefit prevent unemployed people from being thrown upon the rates, and, as things are now, I think we should do very well to take care to think about the future, because although I believe that the measures which this Government is taking are going to help agriculture in the long run, there are other factors which ought to be considered. Although I believe that our present unfortunate relations with Russia were inevitable, yet they are going to have a very serious effect this year upon herring fishermen, all of whom are share fishermen.
I mention that to show that the situation may very well become worse, unless this unfortunate state of affairs improves. The result is that the county council has to spend £75,000 a year upon poor relief, to which must be added £15,000 for unemployment relief work, which means a 1s. 9d. rate. On account of the general increase in unemployment in the last three years, it follows that a great many places will get a bigger share of the pool which is available for distribution, at the expense of Norfolk, although unemployment has increased in Norfolk as well. On account of this, it has been calculated that we shall lose a sum equivalent to a rate of 1½d. I quite agree that the formula grant was never intended to be used for poor relief, yet equally, I aim sure, it was never intended that a county like Norfolk, as a result of the formula, should have to pay more for distress elsewhere.
Then with regard to the portion of the grant which is paid to the district councils, it is increased where the population has grown during the past three years, and this again will mean a, smaller grant to a county like Norfolk where it is stationary, and altogether that county will lose a sum equal to a 4¼d. rate or £17,000 on account of the formula, and which will have to be made up from the rates at a time when such a reduction of assets can least be afforded. What is to be done about it? Of course there is the very welcome and interesting statement made by the Minister of Health before the Recess, in which he stated that areas which were well off would be asked to contribute towards those which were not. I quite appreciate that, as negotiations are now going on, he cannot make a statement on that to-day, but I would like to express the hope that because a county like Norfolk is not an industrial county, it will not be assumed that Norfolk is a county which is well off; indeed, I think the figures I have quoted show very much the reverse.
As I say, the whole question is under consideration. There were two recommendations in the Holman-Gregory Report which said that the rate levied in respect of poor relief should not exceed 4d. in the £, and that local authorities should share the responsibility for poor relief. Also, I understand, under Section 110 of the 1929 Act the Minister has to make an investigation into the working of the formula, and that, I hope, may lead him to the conclusion that the low rateable value factor should be more heavily weighted; also the weighting of uninsured unemployed people would help a little. But, above all, what would help us in this and other respects more than anything is a revival of the agricultural and fishing industry, and that is what we all hope is going to happen.
Taking the debit side of the account, the problem of unemployment relief work is giving a great deal of concern at the moment. Many people have come to see me about it, not only people who are receiving it but people who have to administer it as members of the public assistance committee, and a great many other people in all walks of life have come to me and expressed their concern at its incidence and at the way it works out. As I said just now, the changed
conditions of agriculture have caused unemployment to become a grave menace in Norfolk by transforming the agricultural workers into casual labourers. These applicants for relief work can only be put on to road improvement or to digging sand and gravel which is used in various ways by arrangement with the highways committee of the local authority. As I said just now, £15,000 a year is earmarked for this purpose from the rates. If this work were performed in the ordinary course, each man would have to be paid 9d. or 10d. an hour, but a relief worker gets only from 4₽d. to 541 an hour according to his circumstances, this scale being fixed with the Ministry's approval.
It is felt that far more would have to be paid by the local authority if this work was normally done, and that hence it is a kind of sweated labour. I understand the regulations are that this must be work which would not ordinarily be done, but I would ask the Minister to investigate and make very certain that that is the case. I know of one gravel pit, the name and situation of which I would be prepared to give the Minister, which used to supply gravel by contract to the local authority, and employed 20 men, and now is only employing four, and the gravel employed is exactly the same sort as is obtained by the relief workers. I do think that that question wants looking into. The grievance is caused by the fact that when you get these men at work on relief work one may be getting 5s. a day and the other only 3s. 6d. for exactly the same day's work. It is rather difficult for those of us who have never been relief workers to realise quite what that means, but it would be a very bitter thing if you were working precisely the same time as somebody else and getting 1s. 6d. a day less owing to your circumstances. Another point is that people have to walk considerable distances to their work and back, some 12 miles or so, and I was very glad to see recently that the local authority was considering making some allowance for time for people to get to and from their work.
Then there is the question of getting the National Health Insurance card stamped. As a rule—very properly I think—the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour have insisted as a
general rule that unemployed men must go to the Employment Exchange and get their cards stamped in person. In certain cases, however, it becomes rather a hardship. I know of some places which are 12 miles from the exchange, and sometimes people may go there expecting to get their cards stamped, only to find that the office will not be open until the next day, and, if they have to go next day, they lose a days relief work. The suggestion has been put to me—I do not know how far it would be possible—that in such cases some official should collect all the cards from the men when they are at work, and take them away by car and get them all stamped at once. If that could be done, I think it would remove a sense of grievance. As matters stand, discontent and bitterness are growing up which until this year were non-existent, and I am afraid the result will be the destruction of the friendly atmosphere in which local government has, in the main, been carried on in the past.
Plausible but false statements are being made, and believed, that all this is part of a plan on the part of this Government to reduce people's standard of life and wages. I would ask the Minister this afternoon to give an emphatic denial to that, because it is certainly not the case. These statements are made and believed in some cases by people who ought to know a great deal better. It is generally agreed that, if a man is a shirker, and is trying to dodge work, it is reasonable in normal times to put him on relief work for a small sum weekly, but that is not the case in Norfolk at present. There we have men who are putting up a gallant fight against very difficult circumstances, and who are certainly not men who could be called "won't workers"; nor is it the case that they desire to get something for nothing; and it is very much resented that such a man may get something between 12s. and 16s. for four days' work in a gravel pit. Speaking academically, the result is that, although the Exchequer has been benefited by the tightening of these regulations, it certainly has not benefited the rates. I understand that this has been done in the name of economy, and it is being felt very widely in the country that, in this matter, at any rate, economy has gone a good bit too far.
What else can be done to try to improve these conditions? The remedies which I advanced just now for the general financial position of course apply also to this question indirectly, but, in addition, I would ask the Minister if he could not see his way to giving the local authorities somewhat more liberty in administering this relief. After all, it should be remembered that no grant whatever is being paid by the Ministry of Health in respect of these men, and, therefore, I think it is reasonable that the local authorities should have more administrative liberty. I cannot help thinking, also, that, where little or no increase of rates is involved, there is much useful public work that these men could be put to do. When a man is digging in a pit all day, or widening a road, he does not feel that he is really doing very much good to anyone; it is like the old case of digging a hole in the ground and filling it up again. If a man were draining the land, or improving the land, he would feel that at any rate he was doing something useful. On the other hand, a better remedy than any other would be a revival of agriculture and the fishing industry. I would ask the Minister very respectfully if he will consider these problems, because I assure him that they are causing a great deal of concern, at any rate in Norfolk, at the present time.
I will not say a great deal about the question of public health, except that I think everyone will agree that during the last 50 years the public health has immeasurably improved. For instance, I understand that a child born to-day can expect to live 17 years longer than was the case with a child born in 1850. For all that, however, I do not think that anyone going round the country to-day can feel absolutely complacent about things. In a great many places where I have been the children definitely do not look well. Even if they do not look hungry, they look as if they were getting too much potatoes and flour, and not enough meat, but, on going through the statistics regarding the children in the part of the country which I represent, I find that they vary very little from the average. Such things as tonsilitis and malnutrition are slightly higher than in other places, and I think everyone will
agree that a great deal remains to be done in the way of helping to get a healthy nation, although much has certainly been done in the last 50 years. I am very glad to find, for instance, that Norfolk has been going ahead with the establishment of infant welfare centres, and now the whole county is completely covered, which, I think, is not at all a bad achievement for such a widely scattered area. There is one small point to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister. When one reads that children are suffering from malnutrition, one generally takes that to mean, either that they are getting the wrong sort of food, or that they are not getting enough food, but I also understand that a child having something wrong internally, or being unable to assimilate food properly, is included in the official figures as suffering from malnutrition, and I think that a distinction should be made there, because otherwise it is rather misleading.
It is impossible to exaggerate the benefits of good local government. With bad local government, whatever may be done in other fields, the country will not be happy, contented and thriving, but, on the contrary, will be rather like an invalid who is suffering from some internal complaint and who may collapse at any moment. The subject is a very extensive one, and I have only referred to those points which are of the greatest importance. In this time of economic depression, it is very fortunate that our local government machinery is second to none, probably, in the world, that we have skilled supervision from the Ministry of Health, and that, in the main, our local government is conducted by devoted, capable and self-sacrificing people and by first-rate officials. We do not in this country hear of such unfortunate occurrences as happen in the United States of America, where only too often a city finds itself unable to pay its teachers and its officials, and, instead of paying rates, its citizens pay "graft." We do not find anything of that kind in this country. To show the advance that has been made in the last 30 years, I would mention that no fewer than 275 Acts of Parliament have increased the duties of local authorities, and, even in the last three years, no fewer than 269 Orders have been made which they have to carry out.
There are two erroneous schools of thought about the functions of the Minister. According to one school of thought, the Minister should be a kind of cosmic Santa Claus or fairy godmother, who has only to put his hand into a sack of infinite capacity to distribute gifts and largesse to all and sundry. According to the other extreme school of thought, the Minister should rule local authorities with a rod of iron. Like a good many extreme views, both of these are quite wrong. The local authorities and the Minister have to make the best of an imperfect world, and, while the Minister should fully encourage the energy and initiative and enterprise of local authorities, yet he should very sternly discourage any idleness or extravagance, because the people themselves will be the first to suffer from these. There are many problems which should spur us on to find solutions for them. I would like to conclude by quoting a passage from a book, written by a former Member of this House, Sir Ernest Simon, because I think that he expresses in that passage what we all feel, in whatever quarter of the House we sit. He writes:
We have, I believe, a common object, for which we can all whole-heartedly cooperate—to make sure as far as lies in our power that every one of our children has a fair chance of growing up sound and healthy, knowing and loving his city, and determined to do his full share to help to make her yet a finer and nobler home for his fellow-citizens.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not propose to roam over such a wide range as the Mover, but to confine my remarks specifically to the question of water and drainage. I should like, first, to congratulate my Noble Friend on having been lucky in the Ballot, and, having been lucky in the Ballot, on moving a Resolution dealing with matters of such importance as drainage and water. When I was fortunate in the Ballot, I moved a similar Resolution, but I only had a few minutes in which to explain it.
In these respects, outside the big cities and towns, the conditions existing in this country to-day are appalling; they are an absolute disgrace to the 20th century and the greatest civilised country in the world. The matter is urgent, and it becomes the more urgent in view of the fact that we are preparing for an
agricultural revival and the re-inhabiting of the land. Past Governments must be prepared to accept the greatest censure for the gross neglect which has occurred in regard to this matter, and I am going to lay a very strong indictment at the door of the Department of the Ministry of Health, although I do not intend to cast any aspersions on the present Minister, for neither he nor his colleague is to blame. There is no doubt, however, that the charge can honestly be levelled against previous Governments. I want the House to picture the conditions. The country appears to be classed, from the point of view of water supply and drainage, in two seasons. The one I will describe as the flooding season, and the other as the drought season. Let us try to picture the flooded areas which are dependent upon well water supply and the most primitive drainage, if it exists at all. The surface water is unfit for human consumption and, when it subsides, it naturally subsides into wells, which themselves become contaminated and impure. The epidemic of Malton is within the memory of the House. Malton was condemned 35 years ago. I am sure the Ministry of Health was not surprised when this new epidemic occurred this year, but was only surprised that it had not occurred earlier. Dr. Vernon Shaw's Report stated that the sewage ran into the River Derwent, which runs through the city. It was not purified and the enteric germs also went into the river.
I have here a large batch of authoritative letters from which I should like to read a few extracts. The medical officer of health for Spilsby for 20 years has been appealing for good drinking water. The medical officer of health for North Lincoln brought a specimen of water to the County Council meeting and the description of it was too nauseating for words. In the dry season they have to buy their water at a penny a bucket. They have no water at all at Horkstow, Barton-on-Humber, the only method of getting drinking water is from a cart which brings it round. At Friskney, a village with 34 miles of road, all the houses have to fetch their own water. In many cases farmers have to send water carts miles every day for months. During the dry season hundreds of people have nothing to drink except out of the drains running
through the district. During last summer's drought a mother and baby at New Leake had to be washed with water fetched six miles by the doctor and the sanitary inspector. There was absolutely no water in the district. At Eastville last summer one home was not clear of fever for 15 weeks and many others had fever for shorter periods. All children are rationed to a half cup at tea-time. Farmers had to fetch water five miles and children could not be washed or kept decently clean. Clothes had to be washed in water from the drains and epidemics were prevalent all the summer.
At Harbury the supply is from wells, mostly surface water. There is a great shortage in summer and no supplementary supply. Water is often carried a quarter of a mile. This village has recently had a bad outbreak of paratyphoid. At Dunchurch there is one pump just below the churchyard, which is the parish burial ground. The water is certified as bad. It is all mainly surface water. At Southam they have to carry their water three-quarters of a mile. There are perpetual outbreaks of typhoid and diphtheria. At Berkswell there is one large open well. The water is not very good and is very hard. The distance to carry it is anything up to a quarter of a mile. I was talking the other day to an analytical chemist who works for one of the large boroughs, and he assured me that out of all the well water samples that he had been called upon to analyse there was not one that he was able to say was pure. In 1930 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who was then Minister of Health, gave to the Ruston Rural District Council a water supply sufficient to supply all Malton. I should like to have asked him why he did not make the Malton Urban District Council take it as well. Their supply has been condemned for the last 40 years. I am not surprised. I was amazed a little while ago when the same right hon. Gentleman, discussing whether there should be a bathroom in the houses in a recent building scheme, entirely overlooked the very essential question whether there was or was not a water supply. There was a totally inadequate water supply to fill a bath had it been put there. That confirmed my opinion of Socialism. I have always regarded
Socialism as a kind of mental flatulence. Those who suffer from it think they are filled with good things, but it is only political wind, devoid of all nourishment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member tell the House of a single rural council the majority of the members of which are Socialists where they have not a good water supply?

Mr. LEVY: My information is not sufficiently extensive to cover the whole country, but I have here a tremendous quantity of information in authoritative letters which I shall be happy to place at the disposal of the Minister, should he so desire. I have not in my mind which rural areas are Socialist. But this is no party question. It is a national question, and it should be dealt with by a National Government.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Then why attack Socialists?

Mr. LEVY: My definition of Socialism was applied because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield was losing sight of the substance and running after the shadow. A little while ago the Prime Minister, speaking with regard to unemployment and unemployment schemes, said that any scheme that was constructive and productive or was for the public benefit would be proceeded with even with grant aid. Surely there is no scheme of greater national importance than adequate and proper water supply and drainage? Some time ago I was comparing the growth of the unemployment figures with the growth of frozen capital in the banks, and I found that at the end of January last there was £1,772,000,000 on deposit and current account in the banks—£244,000,000 more than in the previous January. On the one hand, we have frozen money, and on the other we have unemployment, and sandwiched between them we have the present deplorable conditions of water and drainage. Is it beyond the wit of statesmen and industrialists to bring these together so that we can get on with this problem, which is so urgent? There is no work that gives more varied employment to such a large number of industries, and there is no work that employs more manual labour. The water supply as a whole except in large towns and cities is most unsatisfactory and the drainage is primitive, where it exists at
all. There should be a comprehensive survey made with a view to regional water supply on an area basis, and drainage also ought to be dealt with.
I should like to put a few questions to the Minister which I propose to read for the sake of accuracy. Is water supply being left entirely to the local authorities, and, if so, what hope can there be of a proper supply to these almost waterless areas in which the local authorities are too small and too poor to cope with the problem? Will the Health Ministry specially circularise all water authorities, inviting them to prepare schemes of water supply and drainage, and offer financial aid where necessary either by grants or by guaranteeing interest on loans? Will the Minister give the House details of some survey of water resources which, I understand, is being conducted by his Department? How long has the survey been in progress, and how long will it take to complete it? Does the survey include examination of the possibilities of regional water supply and drainage by groups of authorities? Finally, and most important will the Ministry of Health call an early conference of water authorities throughout the country so that the problem can be examined in its local and general aspects and so that the responsible authorities can have an opportunity of presenting their own ideas and of correlating them. In this way, a real countrywide move of great value might be started. But the Ministry of Health must take the initiative. Will it do so? I am casting no aspersions or blame upon the present Minister or his colleagues. I hope he will display the courage, energy and ability that we know he has in tackling these problems in a comprehensive manner. If he has not sufficient power, I ask him to come to the House and obtain it, so that in years to come he will be able to look back upon his term of office not only with pride, but with satisfaction.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I congratulate the Noble Lord the Member for East Norfolk (Viscount Elmley) on the admirable speech he delivered in moving the Motion. It bore evidence of very careful preparation and thought on the matter to which he wished to call the attention of the House. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Elland (Mr.
Levy), who seconded the Motion, when he complains that the Noble Lord wandered over too wide a field.

Mr. LEVY: I did not complain that the Noble Lord had wandered over too wide a range, but suggested that I had no intention of roaming over such a wide area as he had done.

Mr. BROWN: I misunderstood the hon. Member. The Noble Lord has drawn us a very forcible picture of the present condition of the countryside, especially in the area with which he is familiar, and the hon. Member for Elland has told us about some other parts of the country in which he has described the conditions as appalling. Obviously, the matter raised by the Motion concerns the living conditions of numbers of people in the countryside—the cottager and the farm labourer generally. While I was listening to the Noble Lord I could not help but feel that he ought to have had a very much larger audience, and that if we had been discussing protection for the farmer the House would have been crowded with landowners and landlords who did not even think it worth while to come and listen to an admirable speech in regard to the conditions under which the labourer is living in the countryside. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are three of you."] We do not pretend on these benches to represent rural England. The representatives of rural England generally occupy the benches opposite, and I am merely pointing out that when questions of protection and the making of better conditions for the farmer are discussed, those benches are usually crowded. I imagine that they will be full on Wednesday when certain agreements are to be discussed, but when the Noble Lord brings before the House the question of the condition of the labourer and the cottager large numbers of Members do not think it worth while to be present.
Before passing on to make one or two comments on the speech of the Noble Lord, I ask hon. Members to think of the problems he has raised against the background of our present technical resources and knowledge. If they do so, they will very well understand that most of the problems to which he has called the attention of the House could easily be solved under certain conditions. He
rightly informed us that on certain matters we were now at a phase in our national life where certain constructional work, which he emphasised as being necessary, could be undertaken more cheaply than has been possible in the recent past. He stressed that fact very much, and went on to point out that some of these problems could he dealt with by the local authorities themselves. Some were problems for which Government assistance must be given in some form or other. He talked about the necessity, in areas such as he described, of planning a regional water supply. He had some very admirable things to say.
I was particularly interested in what he said about housing conditions in the area with which he is familiar. He described a house which he had recently visited in which there lived a family of eight persons occupying three rooms. He said that a person of average height could hardly stand upright, and he only made a very modest request in regard to the particular dwelling. I was really surprised at the modesty of his request. He merely suggested that another room should be added, but when he began to make investigations as to the possibility of doing it he found that he was up against certain difficulties and was driven to the conclusion that he had better have left the matter alone. The only way in which the problem could be alleviated was by the sanitary authorities declaring the house to be overcrowded, and, if it was to be alleviated at all, the family would have to be separated. Therefore, the Noble Lord decided at the end of his investigations that it would be better to leave the matter entirely alone.
I was much more interested when he began to describe the conditions of some of the houses in the area. He stated that we could deal with rural housing under two Acts, one the Reconditioning Act of 1926 and the other the Act of 1930. He reminded us that the state of some of the cottages was so bad that no attempt at reconditioning dare be undertaken, because the cottages would probably collapse. I do not think that one could listen to a more powerful speech stressing the necessity for a great scheme of rural housing than that which the Noble Lord has delivered. The hon. Member for Elland began his speech by saying that
he was going to bring a powerful indictment against the Ministry of Health.

Mr. LEVY: The Department of the Ministry.

Mr. BROWN: Obviously, the hon. Member wants to bring forward a powerful indictment without putting any prisoner in the dock, because he refuses to blame the Minister in any way.

Mr. LEVY: I brought an indictment against the Department, and not against the individual Minister—I made that perfectly clear—and, in particular, against past Governments.

Mr. BROWN: It appears that supporters of the Government, when they want to criticise the Government try to do it without putting the blame upon anybody. Hon. Members cannot be allowed to get away with it like that. The Minister is the responsible head of the Department and is responsible to the House for the actions of the Department. When the hon. Member gets up and says "I am going to bring a strong indictment against the Ministry of Health," and then says "against the Department," and goes on to say "I do not want to blame the Minister," he is merely bringing an indictment without putting the prisoner in the dock. The Minister who is now on the bench opposite apparently agrees with me when I describe the matter in that way. I was saying that the Noble Lord has stated a very admirable case for a comprehensive policy of rural housing. I am anxious to know what the Minister has to say about it. Will he tell the Noble Lord that it is not possible under existing conditions for His Majesty's Government to do very much about the matter at all? He probably will. He will prob. ably tell him that the Act of 1926 and the Act of 1930, if put into operation energetically and forcibly by the local authorities, will speedily bring about some change, but the Noble Lord has called our attention to the difficulties in which the local authorities are finding themselves.
I was very interested in what he had to say about rating in his area. He spoke about the low rateable value of the property and the consequent need for a high poundage, and I could not help but think that in association with that he ought to have reminded the House that all agricultural land and all farm build-
ings have been derated, and that increasingly the burden of rates in areas such as his must fall upon the cottagers and the farm labourers occupying cottages. We know how assessment committees are constituted in such areas, and, being so constituted, they will, as far as they can, let the minimum burden rest upon the better type of house and put the maximum burden upon the poorer type of cottages and houses.

Sir GEOFFREY ELLIS: It happens to be just the other way about.

Mr. BROWN: It may be that some have knowledge of these things and of how assessment committees work, but I am not going to accept what the hon. Member says for granted. I was interested in the Noble Lord's further argument. He wanted a readjustment of these adverse conditions by a further Exchequer grant. He wanted to get out of his difficulty by some sort of increased Exchequer grant. He desired that many of the urgent problems arising in the countryside with which the local authorities cannot now deal owing to the general conditions which prevail should be removed by the giving of further assistance by the Exchequer. You have to relate that matter to the policy which has been pursued in recent years in regard to de-rating, and to what has happened as a consequence of de-rating.
I was also extraordinarily interested in all that the Noble Lord had to say about water supply and sewage schemes and things of that description, and I entirely agree with him, as the hon. Member who seconded the Motion has reminded us, that there are many things which need to be done in the country districts. I would say to both hon. Members that they should use all their influence to bring pressure to bear upon His Majesty's Government to take steps to remedy—and I use the words of the hon. Member—"some of the appalling evils which now exist in the countryside." If., as a result of bringing the Motion before the House and of the Debate, they exert the necessary pressure, and can get His Majesty's Government to move, then out of the Debate some good may accrue to the cottager and the farm labourer of the countryside.

5 p.m.

Mr. CHORLTON: Water supply is one of the most important questions that
could come before us primarily because the country has not been for a number of years adequately supplied from large schemes. It has been dependent too much upon wells and surface supplies, subject to contamination, while the precarious nature of its continuance has been due to little reserves behind it. This difficulty, which might have been gradually met by ordinary measures, has changed entirely if we consider the effect of an active agricultural policy and also the effect of a change of trade from the north, where it has been stabilised, to country further south. Many trades have failed to maintain their old strength in the North and new industries have been started in the South. We are therefore faced with conditions which we ought to consider, and in any general planning of the country, we ought to try to balance one with the other.
Looking at the existing condition of supplies in industrial areas, we have the extraordinary position that Manchester years ago before the decline in trade, went in for a scheme of supply of additional water to cost £10,000,000. Since that scheme was started there has been a change in the condition of world affairs which has so reduced the trade demand, that, with the movement of new industries elsewhere, this great scheme is not now called for. In fact there is more than sufficient water from existing supplies in that area. We have, therefore, on the one hand in a certain part of the country a water capacity greater than of anywhere else except the London area, and against this we have the case in Lincolnshire, instances of which have been quoted, of a general dearth of water and in other cases of water being suspect. We have also an example from the city of Hull, which is now applying for powers to construct a large scheme at a cost of £1,500,000, drawing water from the Cleveland hills. In passing, one might say that this scheme would go near to the little town of Malton, where an epidemic occurred a short time ago.
When one realises that in one part of the country there is a complete dearth, in another there is more than sufficient water and in another there is the starting of new schemes one wonders whether the Ministry has sufficient power to guide or control the expansion in water supplies. In regard to the great Haweswater
scheme of the Manchester Corporation, I do not know whether the Ministry have exerted their influence in regard to making use of the water of the scheme elsewhere if it is completed. Another example has arisen in regard to the city of Bradford having more than sufficient water and offering to supply the Hull district by means of a cross-main. This on a small scale somewhat on the lines of the utilisation of the Haweswater scheme. The question of this cross-main was considered in some detail at a meeting in Wakefield and turned down. Where does the Minister come in in respect of a question of this nature? In regard to this matter I should like to quote what has been said by the Chairman of the Metropolitan Water Board:
Unless regional control and the pooling of supplies is established, there is going to be a great shortage of water for large populous areas.
Norfolk has been shown to be short of water, and I have numerous letters indicating shortage of supplies, but it is not necessary for me to read them, in view of what has been said by other speakers. Suppose that, as a practical scheme, we were to consider the general supply of water from a trunk main to dry areas, you would probably begin by running that main down from the plain of Yorkshire, through Lincolnshire, through Cambridgeshire, into a small spur to the Norfolk area, and so down until it met the London regional control. Regional control of areas, except in London under the Metropolitan Water Board, is exceedingly vague at the present time. In London we must be getting near to the extent of our potential capacity of supply, and yet in this area there is going to be in the course of time a very great increase of population. Where is the water to come from? A trunk main running down the country would bring the water from the hilly areas of the Pennine Chain to the dry areas in between, and connect with the regional control in London, particularly if that region were extended to a 50 miles radius struck from the centre. That would then form the basis of the main trunk main connecting regional controls. One regional control might be set up in the industrial region of Lancashire. I was very delighted to hear from the Minister last week that he had set up several regional controls. There could be one in Lancashire and one in the West Riding.
Then it would be reasonable to have a cross-trunk main from the west to the each, which would interconnect to those other water undertakings drawing their water from the Pennine Chain itself, and in doing so make available supplies from one area which had more to another area which had less water than it needed. We have a case in the district of Denby Dale, which is short of water although near the hills. That would have been entirely prevented if we had had interrelation and interconnection of water supply before. This scheme is part and parcel of a water grid scheme, the supply of the main areas of the country from a complete connected network of water mains. It might be better described perhaps as regional control for great populous areas, linked up by trunk mains. Of this method of supply the best example is the great electricity grid, which was established some years ago and is now about to be completed. A water grid scheme bears a good deal of relation to the electricity grid, although it has been said that it does not. In my opinion a water grid has even more advantages and is more important than an electricity grid.
We have before us the prospect of the odd position in the future if population does move from the towns into the country in consequence of agricultural development, that we shall have light in the form of electricity all over the country, but nothing to drink. The public supply of water is the oldest and the most important of supplies, going back even to ancient Roman times, when acqueducts were so common and large supplies of 100,000,000 gallons a day of water to Rome were not infrequent. I would ask the Minister if he cannot hurry on this particular development. I am glad that progress is being made, but it is not fully realised how necessary it is to consider this question anew if we are to be prepared for the great developments in regard to agriculture and the movement of industry from the north to the south. In that new situation many things will be called for, and water is the most important. A thorough examination of the situation is necessary, together with an extension of the regional control which the Minister has started, followed by the creation of a larger scheme by the inter-linking of the areas, thereby supplying the dry country districts. To do this
requires, as I have said, something on the lines of what has been done for electricity and the setting up of similar bodies. They have been successful in regard to electricity, why cannot they be successful in regard to water? Water is the most essential thing for life in a civilised community, and if we are going to re-equip this country and distribute the population over it, it is only fair and proper beforehand that we should make provision for what is the most important requisite.

5.12 p.m.

Captain GUNSTON: I am sure that we all join in thanking my Noble Friend for bringing forward his Motion in so admirable a speech. We all want to put special emphasis on the great difficulties of the small rural towns in regard to drainage. The hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) has drawn for us a very interesting and attractive picture of a sort of water grid. Without going into details on the matter or criticising that proposal in any way, I am a little nervous and a little frightened of drawing comparisons between one scheme and another. Because a grid was necessary economically for the delivery of electricity it does not mean that it is necessary for the economic delivery of water. I wish, particularly, to call the attention of the Minister to the difficulty which we experience in country districts in regard to drainage. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion pointed out how very difficult it was for local authorities who were too poor, whose resources were too inadequate, to carry out drainage or water schemes.
May I, as an illustration of the difficulties of some of the small authorities, quote the case of a town in my own division. I give this illustration because I feel that there must be many such cases throughout the country, which are very difficult of solution. Thornbury is an old country town which is built on rock, which means that the supply of drainage is very expensive for a small town. The cost originally of a scheme which was put forward was something like £30,000. The engineers and the local authority had the scheme ready, hut through no fault of theirs the scheme was not approved before it was necessary to stop grants owing to the national crisis. We then had this position, that we had a town with 3,000 inhabitants with no drainage. The conditions are so bad that in some
cases it is necessary to carry the contents of the cesspools through the living rooms of the houses and put them into carts and take them through the streets. I do not think that anybody could defend a system like that in modern times.
How can a rural town like that get over such a scandal? If it wants to raise a loan it will find that the cost of the loan will be beyond the resources of the rural district council, and I do not think there is the remotest possibility of the Minister granting the loan. The county council have been approached, but they are not prepared to advance sufficient money to enable that scheme to be carried out. There you have a rural community living under mediaeval conditions in regard to drainage; and as far as I can see there is no way of overcoming the difficulty. I do not know whether the Minister has any powers of getting the county council to grant more money than they are prepared to grant, but if he has no power then they are up against a most difficult situation. There must be many similar cases, where it is very expensive to put in a drainage scheme, or rather where it is much too expensive for the resources of the local authorities.
In a speech which he delivered some time ago in regard to work schemes, the right hon. Gentleman said that the trouble with most of the schemes put forward to cure unemployment was that they were not schemes put forward by local authorities. That is true. To a great extent local authorities have anticipated their needs for many years to come, and I also agree that the schemes proposed by Professor Keynes and other inflationists are usually schemes which consist of digging holes and filling them up again. It is true that in drainage you are digging a hole but in that case you are putting a drain inside. I wonder whether it is possible for the Minister to give special consideration to small local authorities who are in the situation I have sketched. These schemes are not for the purpose of inflation or purely for the purpose of giving work. A drainage scheme is necessary for the health of the people. If you can improve the health of the people and safeguard against the danger of epidemics by a. drainage scheme it should have special consideration. Incidentally, you would give employment,
although I do not lay stress on the provision of employment in this way, because I think the employment provided is somewhat disappointing in proportion to the amount of money expended. I ask the Minister to consider, where there are schemes like this, which could be carried out and which he would like to see carried out, but which are not carried out owing to the conditions prevailing in the smaller local authorities, if it is not possible to put them into operation for the benefit of the people and, incidentally, to find employment in rural districts.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I only intervene because reference has been made to the township of Malton and the tragedy which occurred there last year. The hon. Member for the Elland Division (Mr. Levy) mentioned that 40 years ago there was an adverse report by Dr. Bruce Low. I want to ask whether the whole of that report was shown to the local authority at that time?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): To what report is the hon. Member referring?

Mr. TURTON: To the report of Dr. Bruce Low of 1892, which is referred to in the report of the Ministry of Health. Many changes have taken place in the course of time, and probably there is no one in power in the locality, or in the House, who was in power then. Malton, which had a bad record before 1892, had a very good record for the 21 years previous to the outbreak in 1932. During those 21 years there were only 14 cases of typhoid. I am not defending anybody in Malton; I am making this point, that if there was any blame it attaches equally to the Ministry of Health as to the township of Malton. Between 1892 and 1932 Malton obtained loans from the Ministry of Health for its water supply. In 1930, when the Socialist Government was in power, and when the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was Minister of Health, Malton obtained a loan for the very water scheme which is now condemned in the report of the Ministry of Health. The Minister of Health in 1930 ought to have looked up the report of Dr. Bruce Low which was lying in the archives of the Ministry, not in the archives of the Malton District Council, and should have warned them of the perils in front of them.
The typhoid outbreak was the result of a most unfortunate concatenation of circumstances. First, we have the introduction of a typhoid patient from another district, and then, owing to a break in the sewers by electrical employés who were laying cables, the sewage went into the surrounding strata. In the surrounding strata there was a fault, and by that means the typhoid bacillus got into the water supply. Malton are taking steps to ensure that typhoid will not recur, and, in fact, were taking steps to deal with their water supply before the actual outbreak of typhoid. In May, 1932, Malton went in for a large sewage scheme, and the report of the scheme has now been accepted by the Malton authority. I am asking the Minister to-day to use his powers to see that Malton get Government help for this new sewage system on economical terms.
The problem of sewage in rural districts is an immense one. Sewage systems are badly needed; and they cost an immense amount of money. A penny rate in Malton brings in £96. The sewage scheme will cost £31,000. At the other end of my constituency, in Thirsk, they have decided to go in for a sewage scheme, but they are deterred because it will mean an addition to their rates of many shillings in the £. With the large amount of unemployment now prevalent in rural districts I think the Ministry should encourage schemes of sewage and water supply. Subsidies are not popular, but we can give these local authorities cheap rates for borrowing money, and if the Ministry of Health will encourage employment in the rural districts by lowering the rate of interest a number of local authorities will go on and bring their sewage and water supply up to date. The Government can go into the City of London and get money at 2½ per cent. Why cannot a local authority pay 2½ per cent., when there is so much unemployment and when it is a case of improving the public health These schemes will make rural districts much more valuable in the future. I am not appealing for large subsidies but that the Minister will take into account what the Malton rural district has suffered, and what other rural districts may suffer. It is not only in Denby Dale and Malton where the sewage and water schemes are not beyond question. Many rural districts are behind in the matter
of sewage and water supply. We have spent a great deal of money on the roads which could have been wisely diverted to water supply and sewage.
The hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) in his most interesting speech touched on the question of the Hull water scheme and the district of Malton. No doubt Malton would he perfectly willing to take the Hull water, but are we to wait for six years while the scheme goes through? And what protection have they if they take the Hull water supply? At present there is no provision in the Bill that these small areas will have this water at a reasonable price. There is no mention of a price in the Bill. If we are to allow these large aqueducts to be carried through a large part of Yorkshire, then the rural villages should have this water merely at the cost of carrying it from the reservoir at Farndale. I understand that Hull likes the better bargain and wants to charge the local authorities with the cost of the water installation in Hull. I suggest that this is unreasonable, and that we should make every endeavour to get a cheap and efficient water supply.
Malton at present has a good water supply, and everybody in Yorkshire felt proud when His Royal Highness Prince George drank a cup of tea in Malton. It may sound trivial, but we have suffered, and are suffering, from a distrust of the water supply, although it is absolutely safe. We intend to get the Minister of Health to allow us to have an independent source of supply which will be absolutely safe, and I hope he will hold out a friendly hand towards the endeavour of Malton to get an independent source of supply guaranteed from the geological and medical points of view. If he can point to any spot and say, "Get your water from there, and make it absolutely safe," Malton will join with him, and the Minister of Health will be popular in those Yorkshire districts.

5.29 p.m.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: As one who has tried his hand at getting water supplies for country villages my sympathies go out to the Minister of Health, because I am certain that his powers are nothing like commensurate with his desire to see these laudable objects obtained. The whole difficulty is
one of expense. That is proved by the statements already made that our industrial areas, or our larger local authorities, are, on the whole, well supplied with water. It is when you come to the small country towns, and more particularly the villages, with which I am more concerned, that the difficulty arises. In many cases the country village has no water supply as we know it. It draws its water from wells. It has no sanitary arrangements indoors, and for sanitation has to rely on cesspools or something of that kind. The village is often straggling. In my particular county we have fairly wealthy people living amongst us, but the village is often straggling, and to obtain a water supply for it means great cost.
You are met with two difficulties. First, you have to get the local authority to agree to a scheme, and then there is the objection that no scheme will supply the whole village or parish. The second difficulty is that no rate that you can fix will provide the necessary money, because it has been found by experience that no inhabitant will pay a rate of more than 2s. 6d. in the £. The inevitable result is that if you can devise a scheme you have to bring in a rate-in-aid, which is levied on the whole of the parish, one-half of which will very likely not get any advantage from having the water laid on to its houses. That means that, even with a, comparatively large village, you have a rate-in-aid of anything from 6d. to 1s. 6d. or 2s. 6d. in the £, and you add to that, in the case of those who get the water, a rate of 3s. or 4s. or 5s. in the £ for the water. It makes people hesitate very much in submitting to such expenditure.
But the trouble does not end even there. As soon as a water supply is obtained you have sanitary appliances put into the houses and water brought to the tap, and, naturally, extravagance and waste take place. I forget for the moment to what figure the consumption per head goes up, but I think it is 10 gallons or 15 gallons a day. The result is that almost immediately after you have a water supply you are faced in a parish with a demand, and an intelligible demand, for a drainage scheme. Take the parish that I have in my mind. It has a
large area and a sparse population in a very hilly district. In many such cases you cannot put in a drainage scheme with a rate of less than 10s. in the £. Your water and your drainage pipes have to be laid over large distances. The problem is an extremely difficult one.
In the Local Government Act the late Minister of Health, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, did attempt in some measure to deal with the water supply of small areas. I did not come here to-day intending to speak, and I have not had time to look up the Statute. I believe it provides that the county council may, if you can induce it to do so, make a grant to the rural district council or the parish council which is proposing to deal with the water supply. But it is almost impossible to get a county council to make such a grant. What the county council say, and with great force, is that parish A has its water supply, its rate and its rate-in-aid, and that parish B has a water supply and has submitted to a high water rate. They ask, "Why should we go and make a grant to village C? Why should we call upon these people who are already supplying themselves at very big expense in parishes A and B to pay a rate that is to supply parish C with water?"
My experience is that county councils are not using the powers under this Act. I hope the Minister will tell us that my experience has not been his. I also hope he will say whether lie can see any way of meeting these difficulties by making the charge a national one, or in some way making it compulsory for county councils to see that the water supply in their area is spread over the whole area, and that the rates should be pooled and the charge made a common charge for water in the whole district. Every medical officer of health whom one meets says that this is a most urgent problem. I am not speaking for the moment of very small agricultural villages where the population is not increasing, but of the villages in Sussex which are growing and where there are a good many residential people. The medical officers will say, "We have not a good water supply. The wells are not safe; they are foul. Steps ought to be taken to get water and its concomitant, proper sewerage." We want these things. The Minister knows
we want them. I trust he will give us hope of some scheme for meeting the financial difficulty. I agree with what has been said about getting money at the lowest cost. It is possible now to get loans from the Public Works Loans Commissioners at about 3⅝ per cent. I would urge the Minister to consider whether that rate could not be lowered, and whether it would not be worth while to lend money at 3¼ per cent. for such undertakings as these.

5.39 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: I do not want to stand between the House and the Minister's reply on this most important subject. As one who for 14 years acted as a county medical officer, I saw the growing necessity for these schemes, and I feel strongly on the subject. The House has already shown that it regards the question as vital. The matters that have been raised to-day are the essentials of rural life. For the last 40 or 50 years rural life has been considered by most of the urban population as being merely a by-product of the nation, a moribund part of national life, but it is now recognised to be what we doctors have always tried to impress on the world that it is, absolutely the kernel, the nucleus of a healthy national life. This is becoming more fully realised to-day, as is shown by the general assent given to the schemes for the improvement of agriculture.
That is natural, and it is one of the obvious results of the improved communications which have brought the town out in the country. The people in the town are to-day able to go into the country more frequently and generally. I know that rather to my cost, as I live only 20 miles from London. Every single lane is occupied on Saturday and Sunday for most of the day, and even part of the night, by those who visit the country in small Austin Sevens or other cars from London. It is an admirable thing for people living in a town to be able in this way to skirmish round in the country, and bit by bit realise the advantages as well as the disadvantages of rural life. You cannot realise the one without realising the other; you cannot enjoy the advantages of the country unless you are prepared at the same time to accept the disadvantages. To the ordinary urban dweller the dis-
advantages of rural life are felt so strongly in anticipation, and occasionally in actual experience, in the cold and windy, or snowy and frosty days of winter, or on wet bank holidays, that he is warned off rural life, and he says, "We like the country. It is a very pleasant place in which to spend a holiday, but we always want to get back to town."
I remember that a relative of mine used to help the girls of a club in which she was interested to spend a holiday in the country. She took them one year to a delightful place in Sussex. Next year she went to the club and said, "I hope you will like to go again. I have arranged another holiday this year. I think I shall be able to fix the camp in the same place." They replied, "No, not the same place, Miss." She asked why. They replied, "There is nothing to look at but field upon field upon field." That is the first experience of the town lover; the country is simply field upon field upon field. It is a terrible reflection upon the industrialisation and centralisation of the town, to which the present generation have grown up. I hope that a new generation will arise and understand the country more, and will recognise that the disadvantages and drawbacks, so-called, have very great compensations. For the sake of the country and the nation, I hope the new generation will realise that these compensations are infinitely greater than the disadvantages which they compensate, and that they will be more receptive of the wonderful beauties of country life.
To-day we are particularly concerned with the difficulties with regard to water supply. Here those of us who have had practical experience do not wish to exaggerate. The hon. Member for Eland (Mr. Levy) I think exaggerated when he suggested that the wretched conditions in some villages were representative of the whole countryside. For the greater part, and 'especially in the areas of the Home Counties which I know, the position is quite the opposite. In general the villages have a, fair standard of sanitation and health arrangements. There is certainly room for improvement and we hope that improvements will gradually be undertaken. Medical officers of health, I know, do not, wish to belittle the desire for improvement. But we must not judge
rural conditions by an urban standard. There is always the danger that when those who are accustomed to town life examine and consider the conditions of country life they expect the amenities to which they are used in the town and they say, "What a terrible thing it is that these amenities do not exist in the country!" But there is all the difference in the world between the necessities of sanitation and the amenities.
It is not necessary in the country to have the ordinary fixed pipe-water supply for the purposes of health as long as the more primitive arrangements which do exist are sanitary and in proper order. No doubt it is a great nuisance to the cottager to have to go and draw water from a standard some distance from the cottage, or from a well, but it is not essential that there should be anything else, and generations in all countries have been used to that system of getting their water. It is quite possible, with modern bacteriological and engineering arrangements to see that such a water supply is kept perfectly healthy. The rest is only a question of amenity. The same remark applies to scavenging. You have to see, first, to what is necessary, and you can defer the amenities until you are able to afford them. One has to distinguish between what is essential and what is not.
Those who served in the late War in connection with the health services had to deal with a situation in which there was a great scarcity of necessities. In that case, as in so many others, necessity proved to be the mother of invention. I do not think that the lessons of the late War in this respect have yet been sufficiently recognised by sanitary science. It was then found possible to purify water by very simple methods, and also to arrange for scavenging and for the disposal of sewage in simple and effective ways. For instance, a simple incinerator costing very little can be put up by a couple of ordinary workmen, and as long as it is properly looked after, it will suffice for disposal of the rubbish from the scavenging of a village. People are often unwilling to provide for scavenging, because they think that a great deal is necessary in connection with the disposal. It is, however, necessary to see that dumps are not allowed
to collect which will be a source of rats and flies and other nuisances.
My criticism of the suggestions of the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) is that while it is very interesting to consider these great water supply schemes for the big cities, and while they are magnificent and striking, we have to take other considerations into account. When the question of the London water supply came to a head about 1908 I was county medical officer for Hertfordshire and we were concerned then, as we still are, with the field of the London water supply. The Metropolitan Water Board were much influenced by a suggested great scheme for bringing the London water supply from Wales. My late chief in the Hertfordshire County Council, the late Sir Edmund Barnard, was chairman of the London Metropolitan Water Board and he turned down that scheme because he said that by improving the existing methods of collecting water it would be possible to provide for London under the present arrangements for the next 50 years.

Mr. CHORLTON: But if the industrial population increases as a result of industry moving to the South that prognostication may prove to be wrong.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: The hon. Member is quite right in prefacing his suggestion with the word "if," and it was because Sir Edmund Barnard recognised the very problematical nature of the case that he decided that it was not necessary to provide for financing this expensive scheme, which would have cost about £50,000,000, under the conditions then existing, and I am sure that he was right. It is of no advantage to provide people with the best amenities in the world if the expense is going to be a. serious burden on them afterwards. We have seen the experience recently of Stockton-on-Tees where a slum clearance scheme was shown to have had a detrimental effect on the persons who were removed from the slum area to better surroundings. They had to pay an additional 4s. per week and, while they had the better surroundings, they could not afford themselves proper nutrition. Expensive schemes in rural areas are going to increase the burdens and interfere with that process in which we are engaged of
trying to get the industry of agriculture and rural life generally on to a proper business and financial footing once again. Until that is done, things will not look up in the countryside, either in regard to health or anything else.
I believe that it is possible to accomplish much by going in for cheaper methods than those which have hitherto been adopted. But co-operation is necessary to that end, and that co-operation was the object of the provision to which the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) referred. It was a provision by which the county councils might enable local authorities to a certain extent, to bear each other's burdens. It may be the case, as he says, that East Sussex is not prepared to take that Christian view of their duty, but in Hertfordshire and in other counties, we do a great deal in that way, and although there are difficulties, I think there is a possibility of getting the county areas to arrange for grants which would enable local areas to help each other. But I do not believe that it will be possible to secure a real general improvement in the countryside until you are able to get some form of central help. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has suggested an alternative method of help from the central Exchequer in place of grants and subsidies, but that is a question of finance as well as of policy.
I am certain, however, that if it is possible to find some method for providing the necessary finance, to be used under proper supervision, for the improvement of rural water supplies, it will be greatly to the advantage of the countryside and will advance the general policy of improving agriculture in this country. But, above all things, we must avoid waste, and there is great danger of being parsimonious in one respect and wasteful in another. That consideration will be borne in mind by all those who took part, in the proceedings on the Town and Country Planning Act. That Act showed a determination to put an end to the sporadic development which has been a source of a great deal of the present trouble. Even if we were to get water supplies for the existing units of rural life, we should in 50 years' time be faced with the same problem again if it were not for the Town and Country Planning Act—that is presuming that its
provisions are properly carried out as I hope they will be. To allow builders to build, right out in the country, long lines of houses and bungalows, with teashops and petrol stations, means an immense amount of trouble. They must have water supplies, sewerage, and electric light, and so forth, but if they are built quite regardless of the nuclei round which they should be centred it is an immense extravagance on the public purse. It means that 30 years hence perhaps a future House of Commons will have to return to this question again and they will say, "Look at these places scattered along the roads. It is disgraceful that they have not proper water supplies and sewerage schemes." Then these will have to be supplied at immense and extravagant cost. We want to avoid that kind of thing.
The county councils, I think, could do a great deal more than they have done in helping the local authorities. I know the county councils do not want to be busybodies or to interfere unduly with local authorities, or discourage local authorities from taking responsibility. On the other hand, the county councils take a wider view and have a bigger scope and are able to employ officials of a higher grade than the local officials. Their help ought to be invaluable in providing against any false relaxation of effort in particular areas. A great deal of that has happened both as regards housing and other matters, in connection with which more could be done. I asked the Minister of Health some time ago about the melancholy occurrences at Malton. If the county council had done its duty there and had kept under supervision the conditions reported on by Dr. Bruce Low in 1892 the matter would not have been allowed to rest as it was. The county councils are given the power to report where public health administration is not being properly carried out and that is the opportunity for them to act, not as a duty, not by sending in report, but by giving advice of a helpful nature to the local authority, by acting as it were as a buffer between the local authority and the Ministry of Health.
The county councils could do a great deal in that way, and I wish they would do more, but for that purpose they must have officials. I have always advocated the appointment of county sanitary in-
spectors. One or two counties have them; I think every council ought to have such an official who is just as necessary as a county medical officer of health—a sanitary inspector of high quality. What is also required is further education on these matters and especially education of the rising generation to fit them to take their part in the work of these local authorities. I do not think that, as a rule, in the rural schools, young people are taught sufficient about how to face the responsibilities of life in these respects. I wish something could be done to get our young people of 20 and 30 to go on to the local councils, instead of leaving all the work to the people of 50 and 60 or even 70 and 80. No doubt the young people might make some very stupid suggestions, but they would wake up those authorities and wake up the elderly people who at present do such splendid and self-sacrificing work. The younger people ought to take their share of that burden. A certain amount of further publicity is possible. Medical officers of health give this information in their reports, and I wish something of that sort, put possibly into more popular language, could be published, put on the stalls, and issued generally. The Press could also help in that direction. I believe that publicity would help this thing forward.

6.1 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The House has certainly found a very useful employment for the occasion of this Debate, and I think I can sincerely congratulate the House in that the Noble Lord the Member for East Norfolk (Viscount Elmley) raised this topic, just as I can sincerely congratulate the Noble Lord himself on the manner in which he discharged his function. He gave the House very full measure, pressed down and running over, and delivered with the most admirable clearness and temperance of advocacy. May I add my word of tribute to, and appreciation of, the manner in which the forces of local government in the country have been carrying on during the past two years? During these two years the depressed condition of industry and the distressed state of the nation as a whole have undoubtedly thrown strains upon the machine of local government and called for fresh sacrifices, devotion, persistence,
and courage from those who are engaged in local administration. We in this House recognise with warm appreciation, on behalf of the nation, the manner in which their services have been rendered to the nation. I speak not only of those who voluntarily engage in the labour; I speak also of the great professional services of the officers of the local authorities.
I would say in this connection one word which it is pleasant for a Minister to say, and which I think the House is always glad to hear from a responsible Minister, and that is a word of warm appreciation too of the admirable relations which are maintained between the Ministry of Health and the local authorities. The whole success and smooth working of the co-ordination of central and local authorities depends upon the maintenance of those relations in a spirit of true cooperation, and it is very pleasant to be able to recognise how that true spirit of co-operation is maintained both upon the one side and upon the other.
The Debate this afternoon has turned principally round a matter which is certainly one of very great moment to the welfare, particularly, of the rural parts of the country, namely, the question of the water supply, and I have listened, if I may so say on my own behalf, with the sense that I was profiting from a number of suggestions made by those who have peculiar and special acquaintance with the subject. It is a matter which cannot but occupy the attention of any holder of my office, because we all recognise—I recognise as clearly as those who have spoken in the Debate—that this is one of those matters in which advance is possible. I refer to the improvement of the supply of water in the rural parts of the country. I do not go all the way with every word of criticism. Some, I think, has been exaggerated, but on the whole we are all at one in recognising that this is a matter in which advance is possible.
What is the nature of the problem? The problem as it confronts the practical administrator or legislator is, in the first place and almost wholly, a problem of finance. One cannot lay plans for this matter unless one recognises that it is impossible in many rural neighbourhoods —indeed, I would say in the typical rural neighbourhood—at the present time to supply a piped supply of water on terms that can be made to pay. The analysis
of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) in this regard appeared to me, if I may say so, entirely correct. Another aspect of that matter is the rather wide-ranging, far-reaching scheme of the grid, which was developed in particular by the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) and other speakers. I admire the boldness of the conception of the water grid, but I fear that perhaps imaginative thinkers may have been misled by a false analogy from the electrical grid. Close consideration on the basis of facts and figures teaches one that a water supply cannot be made to pay in a typical rural area which is situated at more than a certain and not very great distance from the actual passage of a main which is on its way to some urban area of consumption. I fear that, looked upon as a means of supplying an economic supply of water for rural areas, a grid, involving its costly outlay upon mains, is beyond practical consideration. That does not, of course, mean that full use cannot and should not be made of the mains laid in connection with general urban water 'supplies for the benefit of the areas that are situated along their course, and one of the objects of good administration is and always must be to make sure that such full use is made; and that is one of the objects which we have constantly in mind.
When I say that it is not an economic proposition to supply a piped supply which involves more than a certain cost for mains in rural areas, has one said the last word? No, indeed. It is the case that at the present time subsidies of public money are not available for such a purpose, but there remains after that the financial resource as laid down by the existing legislation, under which there is power in the county council, in the larger area, to come to the assistance of the poorer smaller area and to bear part of the cost of installing a scheme which is admittedly not economic. The use that has been made of that power in the past has not, been sufficiently extensive, and my next object at the present time is to secure that to the fullest extent use is made of that power, by which the larger area will come to the assistance of the smaller. I have no power to compel the larger area to do so, and that is the answer to many of the criticisms that have been levelled at the conduct of the
Ministry of Health in the past in the course of this Debate. I have no power to compel the larger area to help the smaller, but, it is my intention to do all that I can to persuade them, under the powers given me by the existing legislation, to come to the help of the smaller areas, and I am taking the practical step of circularising the larger areas in the immediate future, using such arguments as I can—and I think they are very good arguments—to persuade them to make fuller use of those powers.
In this connection a question was addressed to me: What use has been made of the organisation of regional committees in connection with the supply of water to the rural areas? As a matter of fact, the recent developments of this movement have been encouraging. Six committees have already been formed—in the West Riding of Yorkshire, South West Lancashire, the Sherwood area of Nottinghamshire, Holland, Lincoln, the Isle of Wight, and South Buckinghamshire. For appropriate areas I believe that form of advance to be one of the most promising. Another object of my administration at the present time is to promote the formation of those committees wherever they will be useful, but I think it is to be recognised, because I would not found undue hopes upon the regional committee as regards the small rural areas, that a regional committee is only useful where you have some central source of supply and so much demand that you can pipe that supply by mains about the region. That is not the condition of the backward rural areas which we have been chiefly considering to-day. The condition of those areas is that probably their hopes of water supply must depend upon little local sources, and they cannot afford the mains to pipe it from a central source.
Under these conditions, we must not look for too much from the regional committee for the more backward rural areas, and that would draw me to this final practical conclusion about the smallest rural areas, which have, I may say, been occupying a very great deal of my attention and that of my advisers in our recent dealings with the efforts to improve matters in this regard. That conclusion is that the first line of advance as regards most rural backward areas—I use the word "backward" in no offensive sense—is in the careful examination and
development of their own small local supplies, because they are the cheapest supplies and supplies which there is most hope of their getting without waiting for some imaginary happy day when water will be piped in big mains all over the country, which is a very distant day.
That is a work which is always going on under the eye of, and promoted by, the Ministry of Health. There is no special sort of advertised inquest or survey of water supply undertaken as a single act and then forgotten all about. All the time the qualified officers of the Ministry of Health are inquiring into the quality and quantity of rural supplies and into the possibility of improving them. It is being undertaken with a regular persistence, and where opportunities appear of practical suggestions being made for their improvement, those suggestions are made, and with the help and advice of the Ministry they will be carried out. That is the most practical way in which we can get this matter done under existing financial conditions.
I am in cordial agreement with the point of view, which I think was that of many speakers this afternoon, that if under happier circumstances the nation, so to speak, were to be in a position to come to the Minister of Health and say to him, "Here is public money which you can spend upon some public purpose for the benefit of the public health and the improvement of conditions"—I am in cordial agreement that there is no purpose upon which the money could be better spent than upon improving rural water supplies and sanitation, but we live in days in which those beautiful things do not happen. Under present conditions the course to which I have referred presents the best hope of improvement.
Let me refer to one or two particular questions which have been asked me by the hon. Member who opened the Debate and other hon. Members. The hon. Member for East Norfolk asked what is the remedy of the local consumer in the case of an over-charge for his water. In the case of companies and local authorities working under local Acts the charges are fixed by the special Acts, and the Acts usually provide a machinery for the revision of the charges by order of myself as Minister, so that the remedy is clear.
Where local authorities work under the Public Health Acts the charges are entirely within the discretion of the local authorities, but they can, I think, usually be relied upon not to charge more than is necessary to make the undertaking self-supporting. The hon. Member asked what has been the result of removing the limitations from the borrowing powers of local authorities for this purpose. So far it would be difficult to trace any direct result, but the reason for that is that most of these schemes have been carried out with the assistance of Exchequer grants; in those cases the limitation of borrowing powers had already been temporarily removed, but undoubtedly the removal will be of assistance in the future. It removes a handicap which has stood in the way of a certain number of schemes which otherwise would not have come to fruition.
The hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) asked me a certain number of questions about the detailed characteristics of the water supplies of certain special neighbourhoods. He had, unfortunately, not given me notice that he intended to ask these questions, and I cannot, of course, verify the facts of those special cases on the spur of the moment. In the course of the last few weeks the hon. Member has asked me. about two other places—Fullbrook, where the rural district council is already considering a scheme; and Ewhurst, where we have a report from the sanitary inspector that the supply is adequate. In those two cases, therefore, the hon. Member may find that his complaints were not so justified as they seemed to he at first sight.

Mr. LEVY: With regard to Ewhurst, it must be within the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge that, apart from the cottages, the water supply at the school is definitely stated to be bad.

Sir H. YOUNG: The sanitary inspector took another view.

Mr. LEVY: It is stated in a report which the right hon. Gentleman gave to me.

Sir H. YOUNG: That shows the difficulty of making detailed references without giving me the opportunity of considering them beforehand. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr.
Turton) referred to the regrettable circumstances of the epidemic of typhoid at Malton, with regard to which I have felt it my duty to keep the House closely informed. I feel that the House will agree that it would not be right or useful to argue here the question of responsibility for so tragic an occurrence, for it would not be likely to attain any useful or just result. It has, of course, been my duty to make the closest inquiries as to the relation of my Ministry to the circumstances which preceded that epidemic, and I have fully satisfied myself that the duties placed upon the Ministry were fully discharged as regards the water supply of that district, both as to assistance and advice, and as to warning of danger. I like to think that the source and the cause of the epidemic was discovered by a most brilliant piece of what I may call hygienic detective work on the part of the officials of the Ministry. As regards the future, the hon. Member knows that measures for the protection of the water supply are being taken by the local authorities under the advice of the officials of the Ministry. As regards the future sanitary arrangements of the district, I should like to mention that I am suggesting to the North and East Riding County Councils an alteration of boundaries to enable Malton to be joined with the adjoining district of Norton in order to facilitate the improvement of sewerage arrangements which are in prospect.
We had a very interesting and well informed speech from the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton). With regard to the Manchester water scheme, I would observe only that the Ministry is not a party to that scheme or in any way responsible for it because it was a scheme sanctioned by Parliament. It has been referred to of late not unjustly in connection with the question of the development of water supply as an example of the danger of what is called the population trap, that is, the danger of over supplying a district with water and basing that future supply upon estimates of population which have been falsified by recent statistics. We must always remember that when we are dealing with supplies of water particularly for the larger urban areas. This afternoon, however, we are dealing more particularly with the more rural areas where that factor need not so much concern us. As
regards the supply of Hull by Bradford, a difficult question to which the hon. Member referred, this has been most carefully examined by me and has not been found to be a practical scheme, because it is clear that Bradford will soon want the water itself and so cannot spare it. In the second place, it would cost Hull more than their own scheme. Those ate two very good reasons why the scheme is impracticable.

Mr. CHORLTON: The regional committee has recommended the scheme. That was a committee set up by the Minister.

Sir H. YOUNG: Attached to the question of water supply there is the equally interesting question of drainage. I cannot deal with that at length, but I would say that the question of the improvement of rural drainage is a very similar question to that of the improvement of rural water supplies. It is at first offset an economic question, and the same considerations of getting the larger areas to help the smaller apply in the one case as in the other. As in the case of water supply, the best help that can be given in drainage is the steady pressure to improve by the Ministry officials, by the ceaseless work without haste of the central administration, and by the local authorities co-operating willingly and seizing all opportunities that are suggested to improve the methods of each area. A special case was referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Thorn-bury (Captain Gunston), I cannot, of course, compel the county to assist the local authority; I can only use such persuasive words as can he used. Possibly the circular which I am sending out may induce a revision of the circumstances by the local authority, and perhaps the result will be more favourable.
There is one more question to which I should like to refer, because it is of such enormous importance and interest that I cannot pass it over in silence, although the references to it in the Debate have not been so prominent as the references to water supply. It is the question of the nutrition of the people. A close watch is being kept, has been kept and will be kept by the Medical Department of the Ministry of Health and the Medical Department of the Board of Education,
which is closely concerned, for any sign of malnutrition, especially in those areas where unemployment is most prevalent. It was anticipated that perhaps the first group to show any evidence of malnutrition owing to the long depression would be the children; but a careful scrutiny of the reports of school medical officers of England and Wales for 1931, the latest of which was written in 1932, establishes that the condition of the children has not really been affected by unemployment. This has been confirmed by my further inquiries in many areas during 1933.
The physical condition of the adult varies, no doubt, in different parts of the country. Generally speaking, it is good and, contrary to what I think might reasonably be expected, it does not appear so far to be affected by unemployment. It can be tested by the basic facts of statistics. In 1932 we had one of the lowest death rates recorded in England and Wales; it was down to 12 per thousand. We had an exceedingly low infant mortality rate, which was about 65 per thousand. We had fewer epidemics and less mortality. We had, on the whole, a favourable report of the health of insured persons. The medical officers of health are fully alive to the situation and are vigilant at all times to observe any departures from the normal in their districts. It is one of their definite and most important duties to acquire knowledge of any influences which may operate prejudicially to health in their areas, and to advise their councils and consult the Ministry of Health on questions affecting the health of their districts. It is their duty inter alia to send me a statement of any noteworthy conditions prejudicial to the health of their areas.
Those eyes and ears of the Ministry throughout the country enable the Minister of Health to know if there is any definite depreciation in physical condition or increase in morbidity, and I certainly find that there is no positive depreciation of that sort recorded. I mention the fact as being contrary, I think, to expectations. The question has occupied, and will certainly continue to occupy, my day-to-day attention, because I think it is obvious that it is one which must be watched most closely in such times as
this. Indeed, I have taken special steps to secure that any facts which emerge are immediately known. This report which I can render on the state of nutrition is certainly one that may be surprising in its encouragement, but when one can report good things one is glad to do that as well as to have to report when things are bad. In this matter of the physical state of the people, from the point of view of nutrition, I think we can undoubtedly say that the present state of affairs is a tribute both to the excellence of our national system for dealing with the evils of unemployment and a tribute to the devotion and common sense of the parents of the country in looking after their children.
So I close my observations on a note of encouragement. I trust I shall not be told that I am merely complacent. It is based upon the closest inquiry, inquiry made with most anxious attention, and, indeed, a very ready willingness to observe and to report any failing that there may be, in order that steps may be taken to safeguard against it. In all these matters, as I have said, we recognise the good work done by the local authorities, and we recognise what has been said by so many speakers in the Debate, that the best remedy for the evils to which we have been referring is the one to which we all look forward, as it will relieve their anxieties as well as ours, and that is a return to a greater degree of national prosperity.

6.33 p. m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: While I would add my tribute to the value of the discussion which has been going on for the last three hours, I am not sure that I can fully appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's last observation regarding malnutrition. It may be that the report to which he refers is as pleasant as he would have us believe, but he has been very active during the past few weeks not only as regards water supply in rural areas but also as regards the work of certain county councils. I would like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a, certain case, so that he may know the effect of his communications to the West Riding of Yorkshire County Council and the public assistance committee. He tells us that he has not so far discovered any mal-nutrition as a result of unemployment, but I had a case brought to my notice during the past week concerning a man
his wife and seven children. The man, unfortunately, is unemployed. He is in receipt of full transitional payment, namely, 37s. 3d. per week. Out of that sum 14s. has to be paid for rent, leaving 23s. 3d. for nine persons to exist upon. I am pretty certain that the right hon. Gentleman, even with the assistance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would not be able to lay out that 23s. 3d. on the needs of that family and prevent malnutrition being suffered by the children, the wife or the father. I attribute the position of that family very largely to the attitude of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health towards the West Riding of Yorkshire Public Assistance Committee during the past few weeks.
With regard to the problem of water supply, I entirely agree with the suggestions the right hon. Gentleman has made, but it seems to me that, as is usually the case with him in his very lucid speeches, he slipped very gently over the real problem without facing up to it at all. He truly said that we cannot expect to see all the rural areas with a good water supply coming to them in pipes to-morrow morning. That would be a very costly proposition, an almost impossible proposition. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that county councils have the power to assist small authorities which are anxious to secure a water supply, but that scarcely seems to meet the real problem. A large county borough, with a, population of half a million, and a high rateable value, can afford to stretch out for 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or even 60 miles to collect water for their own needs and they can sell some of that water to smaller local authorities on terms laid down by the big council. So far as the big authority is concerned, that is all right; but a small urban or rural authority, with a small rateable value and unable to go beyond their own borders in search of water, are often confronted with an impossible proposition if they set out to supply themselves with water either through pipes or by means of deep wells. It is not sufficient for a county council, very few of whom, probably, have water supplies of their own, to be informed that they can render financial assistance to a rural council or a small urban authority.
Unless and until the water supply of the country is nationally organised, and regional committees who are really active
are established to determine the collection and the distribution of the water in the most scientific and most equitable fashion, we shall lack a lasting solution of this water problem for rural areas. The Minister told us that he has six regional committees. I am credibly informed that one of those committees, that for Yorkshire, has not met for years. I cannot vouch for that statement, and I am rather sorry the Minister is not here to tell us whether that is so or not, but if he says that he has six regional committees dealing with the water sap-ply of rural and urban populations, and one of them has not met for years, it is, to say the least of it, slightly 'misleading to the House. I suggest to the Minister that he has certain powers of persuasion which could be used. When it comes to a question of Poor Law relief he has very forceful powers, and he has not hesitated to use them in dealing with the West Riding of Yorkshire County Council. I feel that the House would give hint powers for the establishment of regional committees to be permanently in session until we have almost approached a solution of this water problem in the rural areas.
As the Noble Lord who moved the Amendment said, not only is the provision of a good water supply important from the point of view of assuring pure water for the people, but if there is a water supply in a district, builders are encouraged to proceed with house building. Many farm labourers have to live in wretched cottages, which ought to have been destroyed 30 or 40 years ago, because they happen to work for the farmer who owns the property, and if through the lack of a good water supply there is no encouragement for house builders, these tied cottages, with all that they imply, will continue to exist. The water problem is closely allied to the housing problem in rural areas. Figures given by the noble Lord were very conclusive as regards local authorities operating under the Acts of 1924, 1926 and 1930. The agricultural labourer or the rural worker finds it quite impossible to pay a rent of round about 8s. or 9s. a week, and now that rural councils are denied the opportunity of erecting houses under the Act of 1924, with the subsidies given under that Act, it is obvious that no houses will be built in rural areas for rural workers. In view
of this connection between water supply and the tied cottage problem, it is the duty of the Minister of Health, amid his multifarious obligations, to pay as much attention as is humanly possible to the water problem.
The situation at Malton has been referred to. I had a personal experience of an epidemic in my own area in 1921. Our water supply was very precarious. We took water from several sources—some from a colliery, some from Sheffield, nearly 20 miles distant, and some came from other sources. One part of the district which was very badly served was consuming water from a well. We had a typhoid epidemic. There were about 95 cases, and about 28 lives were lost. It cost that urban district, where a penny rate would bring in about £160, no less than £10,000. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) counsels the Minister to go slow, counsels hesitation and the exercise of wisdom, discretion and economy. Possibly that was an example of economy practised prior to 1921, but the local residents afterwards paid the price in cash and in human life. More recently they have paid the price in Malton in cash and in human life, and I think that sort of hesitation and discretion is the wildest form of extravagance. If a water supply can be made available at a reasonable figure, it has other advantages apart from giving a pure and plentiful supply of water for human consumption.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: I am afraid the hon. Member has misrepresented me, and I cannot let his statement go unanswered. Of course, I should have no hesitation whatever in saying that authorities who "let things rip" in the way he has suggested are greatly to blame, but I say that, in order to get greater use out of our finances, let us to he economical with them.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Unfortunately, that has been the situation in the past. It is fair to assume, without reflecting adversely upon the local administration in the Malton area, that it has been that sort of hesitation which has prevented the area obtaining a plentiful supply of pure water and which brought about the disastrous situation of a few months ago.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Not a bit of it. No conceivable excuse can be made for
neglecting a water-supply. If you are properly working these powers you use them where they are most useful. There should be no hesitation in using them.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must appreciate that there has not only been hesitation, but in many districts where the local authorities are very small, the very attempt to produce for themselves an adequate supply of pure water would have been a financial impossibility. Think of an urban district with a 10,000 population. The council have no immediate supply within their own area. To what extent can they extend beyond the borders of their own area by co-operating with other local authorities, without the assistance of the Ministry of Health.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: That is not hesitation.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is not only hesitation but lack of power. Moreover, if some great county borough have actually collected water from that rural urban area, and have conveyed it to the county borough, in what position are the small local authority who have not the funds available with which to acquire water for their own purposes? I would like to put this question to the Minister. He has told the House that fie has six regional committees in existence, all dealing with the organisation of water supply with special reference to rural and small urban areas. I am informed that one of these Committees has not met for years. Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that, or am I to assume that that statement is correct? If it is correct, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the regional committees does not amount to much. There is another question that I should like to put to him. He told us that the county councils have power to render financial assistance to a local authority. Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that that is sufficient? I would like to ask him one other question. Where a combination of local authorities find that for purposes of water supply they have to co-operate—

Sir H. YOUNG: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman in order to reply to his question about the county councils? It is not suggested that by means of that financial assistance you can make a
scheme economic, which is uneconomic without it, but the financial assistance may, in many cases, be sufficient to enable a rural authority to complete work which otherwise would be uneconomic and would not be undertaken.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I can quite conceive a county council lending financial assistance to a rural authority and largely making it possible for them to secure a minimum supply, but the problem is rather bigger than that. No rural authority stands a ghost of a chance unless it is in association with other areas. A combination of such areas may secure a water supply much better than one rural authority could on its own. What encouragement does the right hon. Gentleman's Department give to rural authorities to combine for the purposes of a water supply? That should be the obvious duty of the regional committee, if they.are an active body.

Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the hon. Member is that every encouragement is given, where any useful purpose is to be served by the combination. I pointed out that if, owing to the topographical conditions of the rural area, there, is no common source of water supply available to the several areas, in that case joint committees are of no use.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The reply states the true problem which is confronting rural areas. If a combination of authorities find it impossible to provide themselves with water, how much more difficult is it for a single authority to do so, and how much more necessary is it that a regional committee should be a live and active body until at any rate a minimum supply of water is available, if not through pipes, then by means of wells, such as could be provided for the outlying and somewhat poverty-stricken areas.
I am pleased that the Noble Lord introduced this question. We shall never see a final and lasting solution of the problem of water supply unless and until organisation is imposed from above. Local authorities are very desirable people. I have been a member of a local authority for many years, and I know that we are all immersed in parish-pump politics, but when it comes to a question of life and death, or the health and well being of the people in such matters as water supply,
then if local authorities, small, intermediate or large fail in their duties to their local populations, it is the obvious duty of the Government of the day, be it Conservative, Liberal., Socialist or whatever it be, to create some national organisation for the collection and distribution of water throughout all areas, so that local authorities shall get so far as that is humanly possible an adequate service of the purest water available. Water affects building, which affects the tied cottage which, in its turn, means misery and abject demoralisation for those who have to live in the country because they work in the country. I want to tender my thanks to the Noble Lord again for having introduced this Debate this afternoon.

Viscount ELMLEY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Main Question again proposed.

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

6.52 p.m.

Dr. WILLIAM McLEAN: With the permission of the House, I should like to refer to the Amendment standing in my name, because it is a matter which may be of some interest. In this Amendment, I venture to suggest
That it would be advantageous to prepare a national development plan, or survey to assist the Government in estimating the effect of the prevailing social and economic tendencies on the nature and extent of the development for which local authorities should provide in their planning schemes; and also to assist the Government in taking any action in the light of these tendencies which may be necessary to co-ordinate and promote the trade and other developments of the country under private enterprise.
In preparing a "planning" scheme, the first necessity that has to be met is to obtain some idea of the nature and extent of the development for which one has to provide. Once that has been ascertained, it is a comparatively simple matter to construct upon it the town and regional plan, with the zones for light and heavy industries, residential and shopping areas, open spaces, communications, and reserved areas for agricultural and other purposes. Without that preliminary there is a great danger that public works may be constructed and public services may be provided which will never be justified. In making these investigations, or "survey" as it is tech-
nically called, to ascertain the possibilities of development, one often finds that the problem is affected by some economic or other circumstance situated outside the town boundary, or even outside the region surrounding the town. In fact, the problem may be a national one, concerning certain industries, or concerning, it may be, the construction of some important bridge, arterial road, dock, or main drainage scheme which, if constructed, would affect the development of a large area of the country. A considerable amount of regional planning has already been done throughout England, but it needs to be co-ordinated from a national viewpoint.
I remember in preparing the town-planning scheme for the city of Alexandria, 12 years ago, we planned the city and harbour as a unit. Alexandria is the commercial gateway of Egypt, and we had to consider the possibilities of the trade of the country, the rapidly increasing population, the new areas to be put into cultivation, and relative matters. We had to consider the developments that were taking place in other Mediterranean ports which might affect the future channels of trade. All this entailed consultation with various business and other interests, and, in the end, we obtained a fair picture of the future possibilities of the city and the harbour and they were planned together accordingly, for a large development which subsequent events justified. I quote this as an example of a case where, to get an idea of the nature and extent of the development to be provided for, it was necessary to make a national survey, and, to some extent, an international survey, of the problems affecting the matter. It was this work which showed the necessity for the national development plan for Egypt, of which I had the honour to be the author.
It must be admitted that planning a country like Egypt is easier than planning a highly-developed country like ours, which is more complex and contains problems of change as well as of expansion. It must be clearly understood that my proposal is not for the preparation of a national plan in the sense of a town or regional plan, but for a survey of the facts regarding the development of industry and other matters from the national view-point; and then to make
an examination, to ascertain the prevailing tendencies as exhibited by those facts. The survey might be usefully extended so that, in addition to the economic survey, there might be an examination of other matters of national importance affecting the development of the towns and regions. Much work has already been done: for example, the national electricity grid, the large main-drainage projects, river purification, the regional allocation of water supply catchment areas throughout the country, and also the main lines of communication. These matters have all been dealt with by separate Government Departments, and committees, but the national aspect has never yet been co-ordinated.
The Ministry of Health have laid great stress upon the need for regional planning, emphasising the need for close examination of local tendencies and conditions, in consultation with the local interests concerned. That is the only way to get down to the facts. They have also endeavoured to check the planning proposals submitted to them from the national point of view, in consultation with other Departments concerned. I submit that a comprehensive national survey, on the lines suggested, would be of great value for these purposes, and also for informing the local authorities, as well as private interests. It is urgent for us to know the prevailing social and economic tendencies in national development, not only for planning purposes, but also to assist the Government in any action which may be necessary in promoting trade, and in other matters. The examination of the results of this survey to ascertain these tendencies, taken along with what is revealed by the Census in the way of population changes, from which to estimate developments, is in the nature of planning ahead; and it is in this limited sense I would here use the phrase "national development planning."
In order to prepare the survey, I would suggest that it is necessary to form a National Development Survey Committee of representatives of the Government Departments concerned, with perhaps the addition of outside bodies in an advisory capacity. The Government Departments interested appear to be, first of all, the Board of Trade and the Ministries of Agriculture, Transport, Health and Labour. To these you might add the
Scottish Office, the Electricity, Forestry and Development Commissions, and the Economic Advisory Council. The committee would study and collate all the information available regarding trade development. It would note the tendencies in industrial expansion and contraction. It would take special account of resources and industries of national importance and what is being done, or is proposed to be done, in the reorganisation of industry. In other words, it would make a survey, so far as is necessary or possible, to give a general picture of production, markets and the prospects of the future.
A great deal of information, of course, exists, but, being uncollated, its value is rather limited. The town and regional development surveys of the local authorities, and also those of the industrial development councils throughout the country, would be done concurrently with the national survey on the same matter. The National Development Survey Committee would be able to guide, generally, the lines of these local surveys, and would correlate the results as they became available. The work of the committee would doubtless be published periodically, and it would require continual revision as circumstances changed. The result of this industry and resources survey, and the examination to ascertain the prevailing economic tendencies, taken along with the population changes revealed by the Census, would probably be sufficient to enable estimates to be made of the effect upon the nature and extent of the development to be provided in the local authorities' planning schemes.
The survey would also be useful in other ways. For example, it would help to supply the Government, and the local authorities, with an economic background so that the necessity for the construction of public works might be more easily judged. Again, slum clearances would be facilitated with regard to rehousing; whether to be on the same or other sites. That would be assisted by the knowledge of the economic and geographical tendencies of industrial development, and consequent employment. It is further suggested that, in the light of the ascertained tendencies, and by the co-ordinated study of the results of the survey by the committee, the Government would be assisted in taking any action necessary to promote the trade
and industry of the country. The information to be gained from the survey would be useful to the Import Duties Advisory Committee in dealing with the possibility of development of industries and determining how far any measure of Protection was resulting in expansion. It is obviously necessary, in planning the tariff policy of the country, that the Government should have accurate and up-to-date information regarding the industrial development which has taken place, or is likely to take place, under the stimulus of our changed fiscal policy. One might also hope that the survey would provide information regarding the geographical distribution of industry and the tendencies to expansion and contraction, which would facilitate the consideration of the reorganisation problem. The information would also be useful in the problem of the industrial revival in, and the drift of industries from, the depressed areas, of which my constituency, unfortunately, is an example.
Most of these remarks regarding industry are equally applicable to agriculture, and the results of the work to be done by the Market Supply Committee, which the Government propose to set up, would be extremely useful in the national development survey. Whatever may be the view as to the value of this survey in assisting any Government or other action in the. economic problems of trade development—that is with regard to the second part of my Amendment—I submit, with regard to the first part, that is the development planning problems, a long practical experience tells me that all our planning must be based upon the future needs of trade and industry, and that this survey is necessary. The Board of Trade I hope will very carefully consider this proposal which I venture to put forward. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to favour me with some reply. In conclusion I would like to remark again that the difficulty of this investigation, and the uncertainty of the result in a highly developed country such as ours, is not a reason for making no investigation at all. Rather it is a reason for so widening the scope of the survey that it will form the very best basis possible for our planning and assist any action for the recovery of the country.

7.12 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I would like to support my hon. Friend in this question which he has raised. It is peculiarly appropriate to raise it in this Debate. The question of whether you, Mr. Speaker, should leave the Chair is traditionally bound up with putting forward the chief grievances from which the country suffers before entering into Committee of Supply and voting Supply to the Crown. Now if there is one thing which this House has to demand of the executive it is planning ahead at the present moment. Planning is, I believe, far more fundamental, and far more urgent, than even my hon. Friend has suggested. It is peculiarly appropriate, too, that this question should be raised when it is a question of going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates this year.
What are the Estimates which we are about to consider in Committee of Supply? Their whole character is that of marking time. They neither represent any effort at large scale, far-reaching permanent economies, nor do they provide, on the other hand, for any positive, or deliberate, development of any of the Civil services. They continue the provisional, and temporary, so-called cuts made 18 months ago in, for instance, teachers' salaries and policemen's salaries. They continue them only provisionally for one year, and no effort has been made by His Majesty's Government to reach any new, or more permanent, basis for these expenditures. In the case of teachers' salaries, the Burnham Committee is still inanimate. No attempt has been made to plan a future scale that extends to this service. Why have these Estimates this wholly provisional character? Here, again, this Debate is appropriate to what we are to have in the two succeeding days. The Government are marking time because they have pinned their whole faith, rather hesitatingly, and not with any great display of confidence—and in this they are at one with the great majority of the experts of this country and other countries—to the possibility of raising commodity prices by international action. That is the policy which they have announced.
The economic problem with which we have to deal is that of the fact that rates of interest on capital and the wages and
salaries of labour are wholly out of relation with the level of commodity prices, except in a few unfortunate industries—the heavy industries—where already wages have been forced down to meet the fall in commodity prices, but, even so, have hardly been forced down sufficiently to correspond with that fall. There are only two possible solutions of that problem—either to raise commodity prices, or to reduce the general level of rates of interest on capital and of wages and salaries. I am not going to enter now into the question of the proper share of the sacrifice which should be made by capital and by labour, except to say that I believe that in that matter there is no question of choice, but that infinitely the bigger sacrifice will have to be made by capital, because it is capital which more than anything else is being devalued by the character of the present situation. I do not want, however, to go into those wide questions to-day.
The Government, pinning their faith to the possibility of raising commodity prices by international action, have decided to mark time this year. A year ago the whole House in every quarter was impressed by the need for the reduction of Government expenditure, if that could be brought about. The Government had their advisers. They had two economic committees, one appointed by the Government, and one self-appointed by itself. Those committees have reported, but the Government have decided for this year to take no action upon their reports. On the other hand—and this is the circle in which we always go in these matters—while, immediately after the Budget, we were all clamouring for economy, six months afterwards we were all clamouring for development. Six months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan) and others of us pressed the Government for expansion, but there again the Government have decided not to follow that advice either, but to take the middle course and mark time.
Suppose, however, that it should turn out that the policy of raising commodity prices by international action is not practicable, that commodity prices cannot be raised to anything like the level of 1929, that the whole momentum of our civilisation appears to be slowing down to such an extent that it is impossible to
maintain the value of a large range of the commodities on which the life of the whole world has depended in the past, and especially capital goods such as iron and steel. I sometimes wonder how so many people, especially hon. Gentlemen opposite, can speak so much and so often about our living in a, world of plenty, and yet expect that in a world of plenty, where it is relatively easy to produce large quantities of goods, and where, with a declining population immediately in prospect, and taking into consideration our command of national resources, our power of supplying their needs is so much enhanced, the conclusion can be resisted that there must be a reduction in the value of goods which it is so easy to produce and which are becoming so common.
In any case, whether that be true or not, it is at least possible that this effort will fail, that it will be impossible to raise commodity prices in that way; and what will be the position of the Government then—what will be the position of any Government 7 They cannot go on with these mark-time Estimates year after year. Next year they will have to adopt a positive policy in relation to what they have discovered in their international negotiations, the proceedings of the World Economic Conference and their international agreements. Are the Government working on any plan, any scheme whereby they can make a plan of their future policy? These are matters which will have to be considered in a comprehensive plan. My hon. Friend will understand me when I say that he has approached the question mainly from the point of view of town planning on a large scale. In that I agree with him. I think it is extraordinarily pathetic, and, indeed, one would think one was living in a world of Alice in Wonderland, when one opens the daily Press and finds eminent gentlemen, great authorities on housing and town planning, commenting on the surprising fact that the number of families has increased very much between the last two censuses, and assuming that that increase in the number of families and the decrease in the average size of the family must necessarily continue in the future. They ignore the obvious fact that there are more women of marriageable age, between 15 and 50, than there ever were before, so that naturally the number of
families is correspondingly increased; and they ignore also the ascertained fact that in the immediate future the number of women of that age will be greatly and steadily reduced, and that, therefore, in all probability—indeed it is a certainty —the number of families must go down again.
When these plain facts are ignored by gentlemen who have devoted their lives and energies to these questions, one has impressed upon one the urgent necessity, even in the narrowest sphere of town planning, for such a large-scale investigation of the facts as my hon. Friend has suggested—an investigation on such a scale that only the Government can provide it; and, if it is so necessary merely on the ground of town planning, surely it is even more necessary still on the wider ground that I have tried to indicate. If it is utterly useless—and it is useless and would be absurd—to press on the Government this year schemes of large-scale economy, if the Government are perfectly right, as, indeed, I think they are, in marking time as they are doing, it is all the more necessary that they should have their plans laid for what they propose to do in certain eventualities a year hence.
Perhaps I may conclude with one irreverent remark—irreverent to this House more than to the Government. I have sometimes wondered whether, in debating whether you, Mr. Speaker, shall leave the Chair, we are not indulging in an out-drawn farce which no longer corresponds to the real facts. Why, one might ask, is it necessary for this House to resolve itself into Committee of Supply? We shall not be able, under the Rules of the House, to discuss any matter of real importance on the Estimates in Committee of Supply. There is no question of importance on the Estimates in the present situation, with the approaching fundamental changes in the whole of our social conditions and the, organisation of our life—there is no single question which can be discussed without bringing in the consideration of legislation, and that will be completely out of order when the Faithful Commons in Committee of Supply proceed to consider the Votes which they are to make to the Crown. If this House in the future is to deal adequately with the voting of money, we shall need a fundamental alteration
in our Rules of Procedure, and, until that alteration is made, I sometimes doubt whether our proceedings in this regard are not very much in the nature of a farce.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Tradeston (Dr. McLean) on having raised this subject, and on the speech in which he introduced it. I do not suppose that there is anyone in the House who is more qualified than he to introduce a question of this kind. I notice that a certain valuable work of reference states that he was actually responsible for a planning scheme for the city of Jerusalem, and I think that a man who is capable of planning a New Jerusalem is exactly the man that we need at the present time. I agree also with the terms of the Resolution which he has placed on the Order Paper. It ends with the words "under private enterprise," and, therefore, presumably, will not commend itself to hon. Members opposite, but that fact certainly commended it to me, because, in the natural development to which my hon. Friend is looking forward, he obviously envisages private enterprise as a main activity in the development of the future.
At the same time—and it is the combination of ideas that I like—there are several lines in the Resolution, before he comes to private enterprise, in which he indicates that a great deal of national planning and national activity is necessary in order that private enterprise may function properly. With that I agree entirely, and it was exactly the point of view taken in 1928 by those who were responsible for a book called "Britain's Industrial Future." I do not know whether my hon. Friend has read it, but it is significant that the personnel of the Committee on National Development which he has himself suggested is exactly similar in every particular to that set forth on page 286 of the book to which I have referred. I am not seeking in any way to claim patent rights for any party or any group of men in ideas of this kind; it matters little to us on these benches who makes this survey, who acquires this knowledge which is so necessary, so long as it is done, and so long as the knowledge acquired is used. I only ventured
to quote that book as showing that these ideas are common to Members in all parts of the House, and that fact ought to commend them to a National Government. The Government are very fond of exploring avenues, and they have here an avenue which I think they ought to explore to the fullest.
I should understand the functions of such a development committee in a rather wider sense, such as was suggested by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). The town planning side is very important, and it is natural that the Mover of the Resolution should lay a great deal of emphasis upon it, but the town planning side is only a part of the far wider problem. What are we going to do with the population of this country, a population who have gone to various centres, who have gone to live in various towns and districts, because there was new wealth there, or some other natural resources which enabled them to work and get their living? Now those resources are no longer enabling them to get their living in those places, and the question how our towns are to develop is absolutely bound up with the far wider question of what we are going to do with our population, and that is a question which no Government can now ignore.
One does not need to be any kind of Socialist to see that any Government, of whatever party, has to take on a measure of responsibility and control over the lives of the people which would probably have horrified Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone said many wise things, but some of them, I think, cannot apply altogether now. When he said that money must be left to fructify in the pockets of the people, that was, no doubt, true. If money is taken to too great an extent from the pockets of the people, industry will suffer. But if the underlying assumption that, if you left money in the pockets of the people, it would automatically find its best outlet without any kind of planning or looking ahead, and would automatically find such an outlet as would give the greatest amount of employment was true in Mr. Gladstone's day, it is certainly not true now. We have only to look at what is happening around us at present. If you want to lend your money to the bank, the bank will hardly take it, because it cannot itself lend. It is not only labour
but, capital that is on the dole, standing idle in the market place. That is the situation which we must meet by planning. The situation has changed, because the easy times of the last century from the point of view of trade are gone, probably never to return. The times when, in the words of ancient Pistol, the world was our oyster which we with sword would open, when every corner of the earth was a profitable sphere of activity for our trade, have passed away and it is difficult to see them returning in equal measure, with an impoverished India and a disorganised China, with the small States of South America and Central Europe in a position in which they are unable to make an effective economic demand for our goods, with new competitors in the field, such as Japan stepping in to compete in industries which we had regarded as our Own.
We have another factor added by this Government in the last few months that, by a system, of tariffs, the rightness or wrongness which I will not discuss now, the Government have elected for the development of home industry—supplying home needs—rather than looking in the main to the export trade. It is a deliberate choice. I am not saying whether it is a right or a wrong choice, but it means that the Government have taken on an additional responsibility for examining all the sources of home development in order that that source of employment to which they have devoted themselves may be developed to the widest possible extent. All these changing circumstances are altering, in one district and another, the factors which lead to employment. It means that districts which in the past were densely populated cannot now, by their own efforts and their own resources, sustain that population any more. That is why we have a distressed areas problem, and why we have to go to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour and implore them to find some means of helping us to carry the burden which we can no longer bear locally. The future plans of the Government with regard to rating, town planning and everything else depend on what the Government really think they are going to do with our population. In Middlesbrough we have 16 per cent. of the total population unemployed—more than half the insured population. What is going to happen to them?
What idea have the Government in their mind?
There are three courses that may be adopted in dealing with it, and they all require knowledge if they are to be carried out. They all require the kind of knowledge and the kind of inquiry which the hon. Member who spoke first suggested. In the first place, the Government may think we are going to get them back in the end at work again in their own industries. With regard to iron and steel and coal, I do not believe that any Member of the Government can seriously believe for a minute that in the near future, at any rate, they are going to get the major part of those who are unemployed back into those industries. They cannot suppose it. Even if you could get back to the fullest production that has ever been known in those districts, it would not employ the total number of people that we have. There has been a change of method. In a way the tragic thing is that inefficiency and efficiency lead very largely to the same insult. If you are inefficient in your industries, you lose your export trade in competition. If you are frightfully efficient, you invent new methods whereby you produce the same volume of stuff with fewer hands. Nevertheless, the Government should at least try to find out and try to form some reliable estimate for themselves, if their policy of tariffs is successful, and if their desires are fulfilled, as to how many they expect to get back in those districts into the industries to which they naturally belong. That is the first step. No effort has been taken along that line since the Industrial Transference Board in 1928. The situation is very different from what is was then.
Perhaps the Government are considering that these men are going to be taken somewhere else and put into some other industries. I do not quite see the industries that are going to take up these hundreds of thousands of men from coal, iron and steel and the textiles and the other trades. I wish I could. But, if the Government think that to any large extent it can be done, they ought to inform themselves with the greatest rapidity and thoroughness as to where the transference is likely to go. It is no good expecting Middlesbrough and Coventry, for instance, each to make proper plans for the development of their
future when they do not know whether perhaps a large part of the population is going to be shifted into some new industry. If that is what is going to be done with these people in the end, we need to know and we need to plan. Of course, there is the third and most melancholy possibility that perhaps the Government have no plans for the future, for any future that we need consider now, either to get those men back to work in their own trades or in others. But even that decision requires knowledge and requires planning because, if the Government make up their mind that this large population is not going to get back into employment either in their own trade or in others, they have to make some kind of future for these people, they have to make some kind of arrangement, either by reduction of hours or working part time, whereby these peoples' vitality and industrial usefulness might be in some way preserved. It would be better to keep all the people working some of the time than that some of them should never be working at all. Which of these courses is to be pursued, or which combination of them is to be pursued, must depend upon having accurate knowledge of the situation. It is knowledge of that kind for which the survey which we asked in our industrial policy in 1928, and for which the hon. Member for Tradeston is asking to-day—it is a survey of that kind alone which could supply the materials that we need.
Last Monday my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) asked the Lord President of the Council
whether the Government will present to the House a programme, in accordance with that part of the statement issued by the Prime Minister in conjunction with the President of the United States, which declares that Governments can create conditions favourable to business recovery by the development of appropriate programmes of capital expenditure? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1933; col. 501, Vol. 277.]
The Lord President of the Council replied that the passage indicated that the questions there raised were all inter-related and could not be settled by any individual country acting by itself. One is at least entitled to assume that this matter has been discussed between our Prime Minister and the President of the United States and that it is going to be an important part of the discussion at the
World Economic Conference. If so, there surely can be no harm in our arming ourselves at the earliest possible moment with the information that we shall need if we are to make the kind of capital expenditure that was suggested by my right hon. Friend's question. The great tragedy of it is flat one is always waiting for something to happen—some election or some conference somewhere. When the last Government was in power, first one Minister was appointed to deal with this subject and then another, but there was always some reason why delay was to take place. I am not making any recriminations about the past, but in the future things may move more rapidly and, if, as I hope, this policy of increased capital expenditure is going to be made possible, we must at the earliest moment fit ourselves for putting it into effect.
Everyone must have read in the "Times" the proposals of Mr. Keynes on this subject. I do not suppose that everyone will agree with every word of his suggestions, but surely he was right when he said that the only effective means of creating new demand and raising world prices was the increase of capital development by loan expenditure. I think that, whether the details of the plan with regard to international gold notes are possible or not, there, at any rate, in that statement of the problem he was right, and also when he said that the primary task of the World Economic Conference would be to revive a parched world by releasing a million rivulets of spending power. If that is to be done, we need to acquire the in formation which will enable us to make that capital expenditure upon the soundest possible basis. I do not want to see the money wasted any more than the fiercest economist in the House. The way to prevent it being wasted is to acquire the appropriate information at the earliest possible moment. If the Government did that, let them go into the usefulness of this or that kind of expenditure suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), or anyone else, and criticise it. We once produced a Yellow Book on the subject of unemployment which was laughed at by many as a mere party manoeuvre. If the Government think that was not sound, they must produce their own green or yellow book, or whatever it may he, with things that are
sound and possible. They, as a Government, have opportunities of information far beyond that of any opposition party or private Member, and they need to tackle the question at the earliest possible moment. They cannot deny that there are things that are needed—things that could now be done.
We have heard from the Minister of Health to-day with regard to two methods of development—drainage and water supply. He said it was only a question of getting money. If the money could be provided for it, there was no purpose, probably, on which it could be better spent. It is recognised by one of the most prominent Ministers as being an urgent need which he is only prevented from fulfilling because he cannot lay his hands on the pounds, shillings and pence with which to proceed. The construction of bridges, thousands of which were recommended to be reconditioned in each year in the Transport Committee's Report, is not only a matter of the direct employment that would be given. There is the demand in the iron and steel trade for the very work which large numbers of the unemployed are qualified to do.
Other schemes could be put forward. Housing on a far larger scale than anything hitherto put forward, on a scale more like that put forward by Sir Tudor Walters when he was in this House could be put forward. Such a scheme would be far easier now than it was when Sir Tudor Walters brought forward his scheme. Money and materials are cheaper, and there is any amount of labour willing and waiting to undertake the work. All these avenues of profitable capital expenditure are waiting if and when the Government, the President of the United States and the other people who will meet in the World Economic Conference can make up their minds that it is worth while. I hope we shall not regard ourselves as hopelessly tied and bound by the decisions of other people in the conference. I freely admit that a far greater success can be made of capital development and of an expansionist policy if the principal countries of the world, if we, the United States and France, work together. It is far easier and more likely to be a success than if we move alone. We should not resign ourselves to hopelessness and inaction if we find that other people will
not go with us, or will not go all the way with us. We should, at any rate, be able to do something for ourselves.
I hope that no one here will consider, to whatever party he belongs, that too much responsibility is being put upon the Government and that too much is being asked from them. In these days Governments have to undertake increasingly responsibility of planning. The world is too crowded and the problems are too insistent to allow the mere automatic play of the forces of supply and demand to be left to be settled without any responsibility. That has been the constantly increasing tendency among people who are not Socialists at all. It was so in the Liberal Government between 1906 and 1914, and in this Government we have had two Measures, at any rate, which would have been regarded as entirely outside the scope of Governments not so many years ago—the Exchange Equalisation Account, taking on a big responsibility in a matter which, in the old days, was left purely to chance, and the Bill introduced the other day by the Minister of Transport dealing with rail and road traffic. I am not speaking as to the merits of that Bill, but as to its object. The object claimed by the Minister of Transport was that by this Bill the Government were trying to bring order out of chaos, even in the one realm of traffic. I ask that we should, by adopting suggestions of the hon. Member for Tradeston as a nation, endeavour to bring order out of chaos in a great many other things as well. We are living in a time of great changes in every department of our life. We are, in the words of the title of the work by the late Charles Masterman, in the greatest peril of change if we do not seek to master and to get control of it. The question is whether that change shall in future be a leap in the dark, or whether it shall be an ordered march forward to a goal clearly envisaged and foreseen.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I think that the whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for Tradeston (Dr. McLean) for his very clear and admirable speech in which he gave us the benefit of his practical experience. His speech has been followed by speeches by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) and
by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) which seemed to show a very great degree of unanimity. We must all regret that there is no Member of the Cabinet present to hear these speeches from supporters of the Government. We have, it is true, an admirable representative in the Parliamentary Secretary, but, naturally, he cannot speak with regard to policy. Policy is not his line. I echo the complaint made by the Noble Lord and others that it is a lesson in planning which the Government need particularly. It is the absence of planning which has disheartened everybody so much. Look at what has occurred in the last few days. We have had a discussion in the House on the subject of trade agreements, and we are to have another one in the course of this week. It is clear that the Minister in charge of the trade agreements had no idea at all of any national planning. We are to have the Minister of Agriculture speaking again shortly. He is to bring in more of his planning, because he is the one planning Minister in the Government. He is planning agriculture. He is to plan fishing, but he does not seem to be linked up in the slightest degree with the President of the Board of Trade. It is possible when he has made all his fishing arrangements that he will find that the fish have been sold, and that when the fishing industry think that they are in a secure position, they will find that the whole thing is upset by some trade agreement made by the President of the Board of Trade. That is only by the way as an illustration of the entire lack of planning.
Take the speeches of the Prime Minister. There is never a sign of planning. There is not the slightest suggestion that he has any grasp of what is happening. The hon. Member who raised this matter dealt, to a large extent, with the question of town and regional planning. That is a very important side of the question, but he did not exclude the question of industrial planning. That point was stressed by the Noble Lord. Our position is that you must have geographical planning with regard to areas and to industry. I entirely agree that we should have some expert body set up, but it is no good having an expert body set up unless you
have a, Government who know how to use experts and are prepared to take responsibility and to act upon their advice. The fault of the use of the Economic Advisory Committee is that it may give lots of advice, but there is no acting upon it, and it has never been utilised in any degree with regard to planning.
I wish to put forward one or two points on the planning question. Is it not rather odd that this House is in a process of giving the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer power to deal with the planning of the exchanges? This House has granted him another £200,000,000, a very considerable sum, to play with. I do not want to enter into currency squabbles again, but a very high authority said that he was playing "blind hokey," whatever that is, and another very high authority said it was a very dangerous game to play. But the House is willing to trust the right hon. Gentleman with £350,000,000—I think it is rather more, some £375,000,000—to smooth out the inequalities of the exchange, and yet if you suggest a mere £100,000,000 to smooth out the inequalities of industry they will say that it is extravagant.

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain to the House what he means by "the inequalities of industry."

Mr. ATTLEE: Perhaps if the hon. Member will have a little patience, he will allow me to make my point. The point is that you have the adoption of planning by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in so far as he intends to use large sums of money to deal with the exchanges and to keep the exchanges steady.

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: With one exchange.

Mr. ATTLEE: Really, that is not a very good point. Whether it is one, two, three, or four does not matter. Will the hon. Member try to grasp the point of the argument? The argument is, whether it is one, two or three, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be provided with £350,000,000 in order to keep the exchanges steady. The phrase was "to smooth out exchange inequalities." Perhaps the hon. Member will agree that it partakes of the nature of planning by
State interference to try to make smooth the business of exchange. The hon. Member agrees?

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: Not entirely.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member must fight it out with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We hear on the other hand of the refusal of the Government to use large sums of public money for trying to get some planning into our economic life. We have had a good deal of examination of the question of the direction of capital in this country. We have had a number of reports such as the Colwyn Report and the Macmillan Report, and we have had statements made in the House on the very great waste of capital due to its misdirection and loss. I need not labour the very great loss to this country by the non-direction of capital. A friend of mine has made art inquiry. He took a particular year with regard to the issue of capital which we thought was going to British industry, and a careful examination showed that while the Colwyn Committee thought that £200,000,000 a year was being put into industry, as a matter of fact 10 per cent. went in issuing expenses, advertising and so forth, while the greater part of the rest went, not into new capital but in buying up existing plant. Quite apart from that, we have the loss of capital invested. There is just as much cause for careful direction of capital as there is for a careful direction of labour. Unless you get control of capital investment you cannot get the planning of this country. We believe that there should be a National Investment Board. The present system has failed very badly to guide capital into the directions where is is most needed.
The only thing of which I have to complain in the Amendment of the hon. Member is that he seemed to think that everything must be by private enterprise. I do not think that he realises sufficiently the extent to which you will have to interfere with private enterprise if you want to get any real planning. I have spoken of direction of capital. Where should capital be directed at present? That depends upon your national plan. We understand that the plan of this country—or we did understand until a week ago, anyhow—is to have a very big development of agricultural production. I am not so sure now. It does not look
as if the President of the Board of Trade is altogether in favour of it. The Minister of Health, I understand, said the other day that there was not any very great need for rural housing, so it looked as though he did not believe in any very great agricultural development. Whether it is right or wrong, assume for the moment that you believe that we have to produce a great deal more from our land, and that all these various methods, quotas, tariffs and so forth are necessary, if they are to be successful, it is clear that a Government which really intended that end would proceed to take steps to see that capital was put into the agricultural industry—the industry that is going to be prosperous. You may say that it is worth while equipping farms, draining land, starting ancilliary factories and other things like that, but you cannot get a change rapidly by merely making conditions and then hoping that capital is going to flow in there. Capital does not flow just where it is socially wanted. It flows where for the moment it thinks it will make the biggest profit. If it thinks it will make more profit in a cinema, it will go there rather than to agriculture.
The next question is that of the location of industry. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough dealt with that question to some extent. I should like the House to recollect what is happening. We hear very often of the extraordinary shifting of industry, broadly speaking, from the north to the south east but nothing is done about it. Figures have been got out with regard to expanding industries during the years 1924–1929. If we mark these figures on a map, we find that the only depressed area where there has been any considerable advance has been on Teesside. If we take all the other expanding industries, we find that they are moving to the south or the Midlands. Take the question of motor cars. In the five years in question 43,000 extra persons were employed in the motor industry, of whom 41,000 were in the Birmingham area, London and the south eastern area. Out of 29,000 additional employés in the silk industry only about 7,000 are employed in the textile areas, where unemployment is so high, and 22,000 in the Midlands and the south east. Take furniture, 15,000 out of 25,000 additional employés are located in London, of engineering expansion, 50 per cent. has come to London;
of electric cables and lamps, 70 per cent. has come to London; scientific instruments, 70 per cent. to London; musical instruments, 80 per cent to London.
You can go through expanding industry after expanding industry and you find that all the newer industries are settling in one particular part of the country. If you move about in the London area you can see what is happening. I live in an expanding industrial area in North London, and reside in the Edgware Road. We see new houses, new factories, new industrial regions drawing capital away from the older industrial regions. It may be that it is right that population and industry should come into the southeastern area. It may be that it is right that there should be a decline from Yorkshire and Lancashire and the north-east coast, but, if so, it is obviously futile for the Government to attempt to bolster up the depressed areas. If they were to make a decision they might think it possible to cut the losses in the North and shift the people rather than keep on doling out money here and there to keep the depressed areas going, or they might have a different plan. They might decide that in view of the large amount of social capital sunk in those areas the right thing was to attract new industries there, and to take steps to do it. But at present there is no Government office really dealing with this business comprehensively. The Minister of Transport deals with roads, electricity and so forth. The Minister of Health deals with houses, etc. The Board of Trade is concerned with its tariffs and quotas, and the Minister of Agriculture is concerned with his schemes, but there is no comprehensive plan among the lot of them. The Minister of Labour continues to produce gloomy figures with no power to grapple with the things.
What we demand and what is being demanded increasingly, not merely by Socialists, but by all people who think, is that you should have some plan instead of chaos, and that the Government should take action. I am not concerned to discuss the limitations of State interference, how much the State should do and how much or how little it should leave to private enterprise. That is a matter of degree. The essential point, as the hon. Member has put it in his Motion, is that,
first of all, you should have the formation of a plan and, secondly, that you should have a Government prepared to act on that plan. It has been said this afternoon that the Government are waiting to see what is going to be done by other countries, what is going to happen under international agreements, or attempts at international agreements. To-morrow, we are to hear from the Prime Minister, I understand, something about the World Economic Conference, or something of what happened at the meetings in the United States of America. I leave it to hon. Members whether they are sanguine of getting to know much more about the objects of the Government by to-morrow evening than they know to-day. I do not believe that at the present time anything is going to come of very great importance, because I do not think the Government are united on any plan whatever. They are not united as to whether they want this country insulated as far as possible on a comparatively narrow protective basis, whether they want some kind of Imperial zollverein, some large grouping on a sterling basis, or whether they want to work back to Free Trade. You can find traces of all these ideas in the speeches of Ministers, but I suggest that you will not find a coherent plan among the lot of them.—[AN. HON. MEMBER: "Nor among the Opposition either."]—We believe that you must have a national plan and an international plan, but unless you have some clear idea as to what you intend to be the economic future of the country, we do not believe that it is much good going into a conference and talking with a lot of other people who are equally ignorant of what they are doing. You do not get very far by having a lot of blind men meeting together. I do not think they are likely to go very far. Whatever may be the Government's views of the future of this country, they have to come to a clear determination on what kind of society they want in this country. That is probably a point at which I shall find myself diverging from the hon. Member who moved the Motion, and the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings. What kind of industry you desire, what kind of local development you desire, what kind of educational institution you desire, what kind of houses you desire, must depend on what kind of society you
expect to see in future in this country. We desire to see a society increasingly equalitarian. We think that you have to look to building up a high standard of civilisation in this country, which we believe you can have, and that you have to do that with an eye to taking advantage of that age of plenty of which the Noble Lord has spoken, and an age of plentiful production which can only be met by an age of plentiful and widely distributed consumption.
To that end, we recognise that the Government are taking certain tentative steps which will be useful in the future. The Minister of Agriculture is gradually putting himself in a position in which it will be only one step for him to control the whole of the importation of our foodstuffs. It will be possible, with the power that he has now, to lay down an organised plan for the rural side of life in this country, and to see that that is carried out. We on this side do not stand for any reversion to laissez faire. If we find that this particular industry or that particular industry is needed in this country, we have no hesitation in securing that it shall be carried on successfully. The disaster of having no plan and the disaster of not acting in the national interest was shown by the deplorable spectacle in this House last week, and we are going to have the same thing again this week, in which arrangements on one side are opposed by one particular interest. I am not saying that the financial interest involved is that of hon. Members, but it is a fact that certain Members interested in certain trades opposed the action of the Government. The Government have made no decision whatever as to whether it is desirable that we should produce coal, or mechanical instruments, or cheap jewellery. This week we are going to have, no doubt, an attack on the Government in regard to the agricultural interests, and again the Government will ride off on something without having made any decision as to the degree of production that we want in agriculture, or from mines or from manufactures. We claim that so long as you go merely on the line of protecting local groups, or certain private capitalist groups, or various separate interests, you cannot effectively deal with the present situation, and you cannot have an effective plan.
One last word in regard to the depressed areas. We have heard a great deal about the depressed areas from the group of hon. Members who do not, however, deal with the depressed areas from the point of view of the sheer waste of their existence. Those very same Members talk about economy in regard to general expenditure, and then they want special expenditure for the depressed areas. The point is, that unless you can have a plan for this country you cannot deal with the depressed areas. The depressed areas are far more wasteful at the present time than all the sources of waste that will be discussed when the Estimates come before us. Member after Member will talk about economy, about pens, paper, telephones, motor cars and all kinds of little things, but the really enormous waste in this country is the waste of the productive capacity of 3,000,000 people and the waste of capital sunk in those derelict areas. In our view the time has come to cease to think that after a period of waiting, somehow or other, there will be some national recovery in those areas. We believe that you have to cut that waste by positive Government action. We say that the hon. Member for Tradeston is right in his Amendment, but we want him to follow it up with the demand that the Government should act, that the Government should have a plan for the utilisation of the natural resources of this country, for the utilisation of the labour of the people and the utilisation of the capital of this country, upon an organised economic basis which would produce the highest possible standard of life for the whole of the people.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. STOREY: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for the Tradeston division (Dr. McLean) for drawing attention to the need for a national plan of development, and I am particularly grateful to him because I represent an area where there is an urgent need for co-ordinated action if something is to be done for our principal industry, shipbuilding, and if something is to be done to find work for the many people in the North of England who are not likely to find employment again in their own trades. The hon. Member for Lime-
house (Mr. Attlee) has referred to the appalling waste of the depressed areas, and, therefore, I need offer no excuse to hon. Members for asking them to give their attention for a few moments to the great industry of shipbuilding. It is one of the disadvantages of the shipbuilding industry that the demand fluctuates; in a boom year we build many more ships than we do in a, time of slump. That disadvantage is more marked in shipbuilding than in any other of our great basic industries. Fluctuations in world trade are immediately followed by fluctuations in shipping freights. Orders for new ships follow upon a rise in shipping freights. But ships take time to build, and there is some interval of time between a peak of high freights and the peak of delivery of new vessels. The peak of high freights is passed before the peak of the output of new vessels is reached. The delivery of these new vessels further depresses the fall in freights.
It would be much better for shipping and the shipbuilding industry if a more scientific consideration was given to the demand for tonnage, if a co-ordinated plan for supplying it could so arrange matters that the peak of delivery of new vessels should come before, or at any rate should synchronise with, the peak of high freights. It is difficult for anyone to judge what will be the future demand for shipping. At the present moment we have so many restrictions upon world trade, a great amount of tonnage which is lying idle, and there are still in existence many ships which are over due for replacement. But very careful consideration of the figures of past construction, both for replacement and for new tonnage, lends some belief to an estimate which has been made that for the years 1931 to 1937 we may expect an annual demand for new tonnage of round about one and one-third million tons. In 1931 we only built 502,000 tons, and in 1932 we built as little as 188,000 tons. After two such years we may expect a boom to come soon.
But why wait for a boom in freights? Why not anticipate it? Why not act so that the peak of delivery of new ships shall precede the peak in freights, not follow it? To do such a thing, to plan for that, would be an act of courage, and
when we remember the increased efficiency of the modern cargo vessel, and the enormous advantage which will accrue to the nation which possesses it, it would also be an act of wisdom. I do not intend to weary the House with the details of the many schemes which have been placed before it and before the country to help shipbuilding. They all involve the building of new, efficient tonnage. They all involve the scrapping of a larger quantity of old and inefficient tonnage, and they all involve some measure of Government assistance in the way of guarantees of credit to enable shipowners to place the necessary orders. I submit that the schemes which have been put forward are a basis for a serious investigation by the Government of the whole problem of shipping and shipbuilding. Such a plan, if the Government would only produce one, would help to equip our mercantile marine and enable it to look forward with some confidence to the serious competition which it will have to meet in the future.
There is one other reason why I support the Amendment before the Douse. Representing as I do the town of Sunderland we have to face the fact that although we may revive shipbuilding we can never again expect to employ the whole of the people in their own trades. No less than five of our shipyards on the Wear have been closed down, dismantled, and will never build another ship. We are faced with the problem of having to find new industries to employ not only our old tradesmen, who will never again follow their old crafts, but that greater body of young men who are coming forward and who have never had the advantage of serving their apprenticeship to a skilled craft. If we are to get away from the waste of good material in the distressed areas the Government must bring forward some plan which will provide new work, and a new hope, to the people of these districts, which will utilise the great advantage they have in the factories which now exist, and which will give employment to this trained industrial population for the benefit of the country. It is only by a great national plan that such a thing can be brought about and, therefore, I support wholeheartedly the Amendment now before the House.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: Like other hon. Members who have spoken I am equally indebted to the hon. Member for bringing this question before the House, and except for the last three words of the Motion I heartily agree with it. I could talk at some length about the conditions of the coal trade and the enormous amount of distress that is prevailing, particularly in South Wales, but I want to deal mainly with the remarks made by the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). He hoped that the Government would face the problem that is confronting not only this country but the whole world, and tackle the question of increasing wholesale prices. I would like the Noble Lord to consider the cause of the present trouble, and to realise that the crisis which developed not only in this country but in other parts of the world was a fall in a certain commodity price—the price of labour power. If there had not been such substantial reductions in the price of that commodity, not only in this country but throughout the world, we should not have now the enormous stocks that there are upon the world market. In relation to that I wish to place before the House a few figures which, I am certain, will contradict in every way the statements of the Noble Lord.
We find that in the year 1929 the total productivity of this country in relation to the mining industry was no greater than in the year 1900. In 1900 and 1929, 259,000,000 tons of coal were produced and sold. In 1913, 287,000,000 tons were produced. The total productivity of 1929 represents no greater figure than that of the year 1900. The number of miners producing that quantity in 1929 was nearly 250,000 less. In relation to world trade we find that while in 1913 Britain held 23.3 per cent. of the world trade, in 1929 the figure was 18.8 per cent. Pig iron was 13.2 in 1913, and 7.8 in 1929. Steel was 10.2 per cent. in 1913, and 8.1 per cent, in 1929. Cotton was 18.6 per cent. in 1913, and 10.6 per cent, in 1929.
I wish to mention two sets of figures in order to indicate what I conceive to be really the world problem. There was published in the "Economist" in January, 1932, a supplement entitled "Crisis." It is written by one of the most eminent statistical economists in the world, who
deals with the amount of stocks. He places the amount that is necessary to feed, clothe and house and meet the actual necessaries of mankind, at a figure of 100. He shows that in the year 1929 there were surplus stocks in the world representing a figure of 84. Then if humanity had stood still and not one bit of further labour had been expended in the production of commodities, there was in the world a 10 months' supply. That supply had increased by July, 1931, from 84 to 230. In July, 1931, there were in the world sufficient stocks to feed mankind for 27 months. Meanwhile the quasi-economists, the capitalists and financiers, had been advising the Government, and had advocated their scheme of reducing wholesale prices. In the mining industry, for instance, the owners of mines have reduced prices—this is within my personal knowledge as a member of a conciliation board—and have not sold a single ton of coal more.
We do not believe that it is possible for the Government to rectify the position while vested interests prevail. You may bring down prices to almost any figures. You are destroying the only effective market for goods throughout the world, that is the purchasing capacity of the people in the world, and you cannot possibly solve this economic problem in that way. It is admitted on all hands by people with whom one talks quite cursorily, regardless of their political predilections, that the trouble in large and small business is that there is not sufficient money to go round. Ordinary business people in the constituencies say, "Things are at a, standstill, because persons have no means to buy the products that are for sale." That, in the village sense, the town sense and the constituency sense, represents the national and the world problem. Yet we find that the Government do not face the problem with a system of planning. If they faced it they would plan. They would realise that the nation is in absolute chaos at the moment.
In South Wales we have at least 50,000 men who can never be reabsorbed in the mining industry there. It is admitted by people whom one is obliged to respect that at least 250,000 persons who are idle to-day in the mining industry cannot be reabsorbed in mining. Each year the
developments of science and technique in mining are such that the output of 256,000,000 tons is becoming a static amount, and is being produced by a smaller and smaller number of workers. We see a reduction of one commodity mainly, and that is labour power. It is destroying the effective market for goods in this country, and destroying what will enable most other industries in time to get hack to their feet and ultimately absorb men.
The hon. Member who introduced this subject dealt with national planning and the setting up of a, regional council. With that we heartily concur. We know that in places like Glamorgan, where the Poor Law rate is more than 8s. in the £. In places like Merthyr Tydvil it is more than 13s. in the £,and bearing in mind that there are areas in the country where the Poor Law rate is not more than 10d., there certainly is need for the Government to face up to the problem from the standpoint of national planning. But the major problem is the problem of unemployment, the absorbing of men in trade and commerce. We do not believe it is possible for that to be done unless the Government reverse the policy of the last 18 months to two years. Instead of adopting a policy of cuts and economy they should set about inflation, not inflation by dabbling with exchanges, but by putting a greater spending, power in the hands of the unemployed and the persons in industry. Enable those people to spend that money and they will be able to purchase all the commodities necessary to help the wheels of industry to turn more speedily and create a general revival of trade.

8.35 p.m.

Major PROCTER: I rise to support this Amendment because I feel that there is at this moment a great need for an ad hoc committee to guide the Government as to the nature of the ebb and flow of the population in this country, particularly in relation to those areas which are to-day filled with men and women desirous of doing an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, but unable to find employment because the new industries upon which the future prosperity of this country depends, have drifted to the South. The National Government must deal with the attraction which
London has for the new industries in this country, and, in particular, for those industries now compelled to establish themselves here, and thus provide employment for British workers—it is only by the formation of such a committee controlling, directing and advising that the arrest of this drift of population from North to South can be secured.
If I am asked how it is that industry has been attracted to the. South, my answer is that it is largely due to the fact that London is the financial centre of this country and of the world. When companies are in process of formation their capital is subscribed here. Their directors in many cases live here; and it is natural that directors of new industries living in London should wish to have their works here also. That is one of the reasons why a great office staff belonging to the African and Eastern Company was moved down to London from Liverpool, putting a great number out of work and causing removal of staffs. A second reason for this shift of population is the effect of the Safeguarding Duties. When these duties were put on, new industries were established at the rate of two per week. Along the Great West Road a monument to these duties has been erected in almost every field. Slough attracted many of these new industries. Cheap rents, availability of power, nearness to London, formed powerful inducements for the establishment of factories in that area for those industries which Safeguarding brought to this country.
Another important factor in this gravitation from North to South was the fact that in the North labour was highly organised, under skilful trade union leaders. It was a region noted for its lockouts and also for its strikes. It was natural that those who desired to establish new industries under peaceful conditions should turn from those troublesome areas where there might be strikes, where their men might be called away from work, and direct their attention to places where trade unionism was perhaps not so strong. I do not say that I admire them for doing so but business under our present system is run on a basis of profit and, naturally, the prudent pioneer of industry would wish to see his enterprise
kept away from those conditions and influences which might interfere with its progress.
A further reason for the drift has been the banking position in those distressed areas. In Lancashire, and especially in connection with the cotton industry, owing to the over-capitalisation of the factories many banks could not and would not allow any trading or credit facilities, or at any rate very little credit facilities. Take my own division—indeed the whole North-East of Lancashire. At this moment, the banks have in their grasp practically every cotton mill. No cotton mill to-day can expand or find the necessary banking facilities for development. It may be because of the banks being heavily hit as a result of their bad investments in the cotton industry, but whatever the reason may be it is a most difficult thing to-day to find money for new enterprises in the distressed areas. In my own division we have one of the best-equipped spinning mills in this country. If the money were available, it could be run at full-time to-day. The orders are there but it is compelled owing to the curtailing of banking facilities to limit its activities. The result is that the mill is on short time. We in Lancashire cannot get adequate assistance from the banks and we know that new industries have gone to the South because there are greater credit facilities there than in the North.
We have in Accrington a very wide-awake Development association headed by a man who has retired after a very active business life and has devoted himself to the service of the town. In that Development association we have large-hearted and public-spirited men who have done everything possible. We have scoured the whole world; we have gone to the Continent and made contacts in America endeavouring to attract new industries to our borough. We have got two and we would have had a great many more if, on the one hand, the duties had been higher or if, on the other hand, Germany had not put an embargo on exports of machinery from this country. What is the handicap? There is no one to whom these Development associations can go for the capital to resurrect factories which are capable of providing work. An attempt has been made to
solve the problem in the following way. An appeal has been made to the work-people themselves, and, with that sturdy independence for which Lancashire is noted, the workpeople out of their savings subscribed in one case £2,500. The leaders of our Development association are trying to get another £2,500. With that £5,000, we could give employment to 300 cotton operatives in Accrington at this very moment, as a start. But there is no committee to whom we can go, and even the Prime Minister has not given us that sympathy that we would expect from him, to, help what we believe to be vital and necessary for the re-establishment of that prosperity that was once the glory of the great working county of Lancashire. I hope, therefore, that the Government will see its way, not only to appoint a committee, but to give that committee funds with which to work. With £30,000 in Accrington to-day, we could establish at least four new factories there and help to solve unemployment in that district.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Who would buy the goods?

Major PROCTER: The people who needed them. It is all very well to talk about the buyers, but I am trying to do, what the hon. Member should do, namely, appealing for work for the workers. We want work and wages, and when we get them the workers.can buy, not only their own goods, but the goods from other factories as well. I hope the Government will consolidate the great work of these development associations throughout the country. At the moment what happens? A foreigner wants to establish himself in this country, and he reads in his paper about the south. Psychologically, he thinks that London is England, and he writes to the authorities in London for guidance. Such applicants are directed to London constituencies, but we get some of them. If we had a Central Planning Board that could say to these inquirers: "We advise you to go to this place or to that place," I think there would be coordination of the work of these wonderful associations. I appeal to the Government, seeing that we have on the one hand a development association in every district that is keen and willing to help, to have one over-riding, guiding autho-
rity to co-ordinate our work and supply us with sufficient funds, and we in our turn will help the National Government to solve the unemployment problem which is so distressing us all.

8.49 p.m.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: The word "plan" in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for the Tradeston Division (Dr. W. McLean) refers us at once to the Town and Country Planning Act of last year, and that gives me the illustration that I want to bring before the House, of the need of a wider basis for our planning. This morning I was sitting on one of the committees of the Board of Welwyn Garden City. I often feel that this House and the country have not taken enough advantage of the very practical example which they have of thorough-going planning in the garden cities of Letchworth and Welwyn. They differ from the ordinary town and country planning, the geographical planning, because they have been founded upon that wider sphere of knowledge for which the hon. Member for Tradeston is pleading to-day. The garden cities were laid down definitely on the basis of that little book called "To-morrow," by Ebenezer Howard, of fusing the rival interests of the town on the one side and the country on the other, the industrial and the other amenities and necessities of our national life. It was out that idea that grew the diagram for the garden city.
Within 24 miles of this House you have one garden city and within 40 miles the other, and anybody can see what has been the result of this bit of thorough-going development of a properly planned scheme, in the one case for 30 years and in the other for 12 years, each of them at separate stages of development, each reflecting the difficulties of the present time and the terrible troubles of deflation, having been developed on a higher basis of capital value and having now to try to make both ends meet on the deflated prices of the present day. That is a separate question, but the essential thing is the immense value of incorporating there the idea put forward in the Resolution moved by the hon. Member for Tradeston, the idea that you have, first of all, to consider for what life you are
planning, to have regard to all the interests concerned, such as locomotion, communication of every kind, industry, shipping, commerce, and the whole needs of the people. They are all put together in those diagrammatic experiments which have been a conspicuous success up to a certain point.
One point has been criticised by hon. Members opposite, who have not been unfriendly to the general idea of planning. Those two experiments are of significance because, although largely supported from the other side, not least from the Socialist side, in society and in politics, they have each of them been the product of private enterprise, not of local authorities. Out of them have grown local authorities in each case to take over such part of their work as is best done by local authorities, but they are a result, and a conspicuous result, of the development of private enterprise. However much we may be anxious to see full value given to authority, either national or local, in this sphere of development, we must recognise that enterprise and ingenuity are essentially matters for individual and private enterprise, and it is only when that crystallises into something more definite that it is possible to get it undertaken, in whole or in part, by some kind of association of individuals, whether by co-operative or Government effort. As long as you can keep private enterprise ripe, free, detached, independent, and able to reap the fruits of its work, whether it be disaster or good fortune, and as long as you keep the way open for the free development of that private enterprise, there is a great opportunity, at the right stage, for the introduction of co-operative methods, whether in the form of large statutory companies, or businesses, or corporations, or Government institutions of one kind and another.
One thing in the garden city movement is the absurdity of those who, thinking little, believed that these new towns could challenge successfully the great industrial towns. We are learning or have learned that their interests are the same and that the need of the nest towns and the old towns is a large-scale development in co-operation to attack, to fight, and to strangle at birth, if possible, the sporadic development of industry, which is doing so much harm and leading to so much waste. An industry wants to escape the
difficulties of one region and to go to another, not because of the value eventually of the industry to the region, but because of the immediate escape from danger which the escape affords. On the other hand, an employer may want to be away from all restrictions and to be a law unto himself in his development. He sees a site advertised in some rural district where the council will not have very much control over him, and he goes there regardless of the needs and the development of the district and the housing of the people. The Government of this country were immensely to blame for the way in which they set about developing the Slough Estate, with no regard for anybody except for the transport and munition industries at that time.
Let it not be said by those who criticise this suggestion that those of us who are in favour of it want to plan too far. My hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) gave me that impression. There is a great danger in planning too rigidly for conditions that you cannot foresee. That would be unscientific and the greatest mistake, and yet it has been suggested that we should plan for conditions that cannot be foreseen. Everybody knows that certain conditions cannot be foreseen at the present time. The criticism from the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) of the Government took no account of that fact when he suggested that they should plunge in one direction when it is impossible for them to foresee the development of tariffs or the plans of currency. In Russia the Soviet plan has been a great illustration of that. In certain directions it may have succeeded, but in other directions it has manifestly failed; but even with such powers as we should never think of giving any Government in this country they are planning under circumstances which they cannot fully foresee. That is the danger of having too definitely a national development plan.
We want to bring together all the conditions that are necessary for understanding development. To that symposium of information and fact all could have resort where development of one kind or another is proposed. It should be the means of communication between the different areas concerned. I want to ask the Minister who is going to reply for the Government to tell us how far the Advi-
sory Committee which the Minister is proposing to set up is able to take on the tremendously wide functions that are included in the town and country circular which the Government have issued. How far is the committee capable of going into all the different avenues of government which are laid down as necessary for planning in this admirable circular? The elasticity which is referred in one paragraph, the consultation of interests which is referred to in another, and the question of industry and commerce which are dealt with in another—all these enter into development on a national scale. We do not want to have each interest making its own investigation and approaching Government Departments separately. We want to have more pooling of information, some office in which information can be pooled. We want a practical scheme for avoiding waste of money and energy, for preventing mistakes arising, and for helping on sound development. In that sense I hope that the discussion this evening has been interesting, and we hope that the Government will find various ways of making use of the various interests.

9.2 p.m.

Commander COCHRANE: I do not propose to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) into a discussion of the advantage of garden cities, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Dr. McLean) will not think I am unfriendly to his Amendment if I venture to suggest that there are very definite limits beyond which mere planning cannot carry us. The single point with which I should like to deal was raised by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams). He drew attention to the fact that in the coal-mining industry the same tonnage is being raised to-day as in 1900 but with a substantially fewer number of men employed. He drew attention to similar conditions in the cotton industry, and we know that that condition exists throughout the country. At the present time increasing production is being carried on with a reducing number of people employed. When hon. Members opposite say, as has been said from those benches this evening, that the solution of the difficulty is some means by which the level of consumption could be brought to the level
of production, they are begging the question. If it be a fact that we can increase production with any possibility of immediate consumption by restoring wage -cuts and, if you like, by a general increase of the level of wages, they are giving no answer to the problem; and I submit that if we are going to adopt a system of national planning we must first -of all make up our minds for what we wish to plan, and what purpose—I cannot use the word "principle" because it might be thought I was dealing with ethical or moral principles—do we intend to plan?
What is the conception in this country of the tendency of planning? I do not want to misrepresent the opinions of hon. Members opposite, but when the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) said that his ideal was an equalitarian State, that may mean many things or nothing. It might mean, if the development of it were put in the hands of the party opposite, an equality of misery under a cast-iron bureaucracy. There is much to be said against a disorganised state of society, but a very great deal more might be said against an organised disorder in society, and that would be the danger if the Government sat down and said, "Now, let us plan," without having any clear idea in their own minds of what it was they were planning. On the other hand, I do not altogether turn down the hon. Member's definition. Nobody on this side of the House does turn it down, because we all desire to see a more equal distribution of income and a less degree of poverty; but if we are to bring that about we must first of all make up our minds how it is to be done and on what principle it is to be done. Then, and then only, will be the time to make up our minds that we are going to have a national plan to secure that objective.

9.7 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): We have had an interesting Debate, and the hon. Member for Tradeston (Dr. McLean), who initiated it, has I think, every ground for congratulating himself upon the interesting series of speeches which his Motion has evoked. He was courteous enough to let me have considerable notice of the main points he in-
tended to raise, and consequently I have been able to confer with the other Departments concerned with a view to making a comprehensive reply. Like many another hunter, the hon. Member has started much game other than that which he was seeking. If I understood his speech, he used the analogy of town planning more as a basis for describing his idea of industrial planning, and I did not at all take him to mean that he desired some national system of town planning of areas so much as a comprehensive planning of industrial possibilities and developments. I think some of the subsequent speeches have rather misunderstood the analogy, and concentrated upon that rather than upon the main purpose which underlay the hon. Member's suggestion. The Government are very intent on having the fullest possible information and making the greatest possible use of it. Any suggestion that there is any lack of plan is one entirely without foundation. I can understand that the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) could not resist the temptation of suggesting that there is no plan here and there, in instances which he cited, but I can assure him that there is planning all along the line, which will be revealed at the right and proper moment.
In dealing with industrial development there are certain basic propositions which must be borne in mind. First of all, it must be the object of the Government to plan the industry of the country as a whole. It would be quite wrong for the Government to think only in terms of the depressed areas or in terms only of the non-depressed areas. The Government's function must be to plan industry as a, whole, utilising the whole area of the country. The Government have very limited powers over the localisation of industry, apart from the provisions in certain town planning schemes of an intensely local character. There is no power at all in any Government body to say to industrialists: "You shall found your industry in such or such an area, and no other," and I cannot see a Government asking for legislative power to direct and control the freedom of industry in determining their sites, their areas, and the nature of the conditions under which they are to operate. That seems to be quite beyond the functions of legitimate Government in present-day
conditions. But, the Government are faced also with the fact that unnecessary duplication is the very negation of planning, and if in the industrial and highly developed areas of the North and the Midlands there are great industrial possibilities, with all kinds of services available—labour, sites, factories, power, and public utility companies—it would be the height of waste if they were not adequately and properly used, while in some other area where those services did not exist an industry requiring them was to set itself up. It is the aim of the Government, by its fiscal policy and other means, to endeavour so to direct and coordinate industry that the advantages of those highly-serviced areas are made available to new industries.
There have been statements in the House from time to time of the nature and location of new industries set up here since the change in fiscal policy. One such statement was made in December of last year. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to make to the House within a very few weeks a complete statement of the development of new industries, showing the articles which they produce, the areas in which they are located, and their distribution over the country as a whole, and in order to make the statement complete to show, also, such industries as have closed down. That statement, which is already in draft, will be extremely informative and will be made generally available. I mention that at the outset of the few remarks I wish to make in order that the idea may become widely known that this whole system of planning has the Government's full attention. Planning must be severely practical. In these days in which there are contests between inflationists, deflationists, and reflationists, the Government intend that they should, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Commander Cochrane) has just said, know where they are going before they take action. Vagueness is the very negation of planning. There must be a very definite purpose which is being pursued, and so the Ministry of Health make it quite clear that their conception of planning must be severely practical in character. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), who made what, if I may be allowed to say so, was an extremely practical speech,
said that in the Middlesbrough area he did not recollect any survey since the report of 1928.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: I was not speaking only of my own area; I was saying I remembered no general estimate, with regard to the heavy industries, as to the amount which could be taken as permanent, since 1928.

Dr. BURGIN: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I had no intention of misrepresenting him, but wished only to call the attention of the House to the extraordinarily valuable series of surveys, five in all, relating to Lancashire, South Wales, Scotland, Merseyside, and the North-East Coast—the volume dealing with the North-East Coast was issued in 1932 and presents a most elaborate survey of the industrial conditions of the whole of that at present unhappy area in a particularly attractive and informative manner.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Not by the Board of Trade.

Dr. BURGIN: On the contrary. The Industrial Survey of the North-East Area says, on page 6:
By a letter from the President of the Board of Trade we were asked to conduct an industrial survey.
The industrial survey was conducted by Armstrong College, Newcastle-on-Tyne, at the request of the Board of Trade, and the information was made available for the world as a whole.
The task of preparing a detailed survey over "the whole of the country on the lines of the surveys for these five particular areas is a momentous one, and the Government would have to be very fully satisfied that the expense, labour and detailed work involved would produce adequate results before they could embark upon anything of that kind. Large areas of our country have not changed in industrial development sufficiently to warrant an investigation of that character, but national development and national planning are in the air. They are engaging attention, and probably one of the secrets of bringing this country back to industrial prosperity will be the discovering of a method by which the progressive development of the lighter industries, in areas where the services available for the heavier industries exist, could be utilised to the greatest advantage.
The Government have listened with the greatest interest to the ideas propounded by one who is singularly qualified to put forward reflective suggestions of this character, and with much that he says they are in agreement. The idea of planning is entirely congenial to them, and every possible advantage will be taken of the information which is available to the Department.

Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1933.

CLASS 1.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £222,502, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the House of Commons."—[NOTE:—£110,000 has been voted-on account.]

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to."—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).

9.23 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that a vacancy in the number of puisne judges of the King's Bench Division should be filled, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancy accordingly, in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925.
Hon. Members in all parts of the House will be familiar with this procedure, which has been necessary since it was first adopted in 1910. It has been repeated in the Supreme Court Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and the present position is that when the puisne judges, that is, the judges under the Lord Chief Justice in the King's Bench Division, are in
number 15 or more, an Address to His Majesty shall be required before a vacancy can be filled. Such a Motion if passed in both Houses of Parliament, is efficacious for a period of 12 months, that is to say, if vacancies occur one after another within that period, and as often as a vacancy occurs, upon such an Address having been presented. The lamented death, which has recently taken place, of Mr. Justice McCardie, leaves the Lord Chief Justice with 16 puisne judges, and because it is desired to bring the number up once more to 17, I therefore make this proposal to the House.
I am not sure how far the House will desire me to make the statements that have always been made on this occasion as to the history of this matter. My learned Friend the Solicitor-General moved a similar Motion in February of last year, and on previous occasions the history has been repeated to the House how, as long ago as 1873, when the population was much smaller and the amount of business was much less, there were 18 Common Law judges. They were reduced to the number of 15 in 1876, when the Court of Appeal was set up, and raised to 16 in 1907, and in 1910 to 17, subject to the provisions to which I have referred as to a vacancy not being filled when the number is over 15, unless both Houses of Parliament have presented an Address to His Majesty. The experience of the last 10 or 15 years must have satisfied everybody that if the number of judges in the King's Bench Division is allowed to fall below the number which it has recently been, namely, 17, there is congestion, delay and a denial of justice. The experience during the period between October, 1929, and 1932 was a very striking one. In October, 1929, Mr. Justice Shear-man resigned and, partly from motives of economy and partly perhaps for other reasons, the vacancy was not filled until February, 1932, when the Motion to which I have referred was moved and Mr. Justice du Parcq was appointed to fill the vacancy. The congestion of business in those supervening years was lamentable. It was recognised on all hands, even by some of those who first thought of opposing the Motion made in 1932, that the appointment of the new judge to fill the vacancy was necessary. I have a great number of figures with
which I could regale the House if necessary, or if any hon. Member desired. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then I will not pursue them. I thought that if I threatened the House it would be sufficient. Let me say in a sentence that, if you take the number of cases awaiting trial on the 1st January in each of the last four years, you will find a progressive increase in the number of cases.
There have been on these occasions two customary objections to such a Motion. One was that there were overdue certain reforms in legal procedure. The other objection was based on what was supposed to he the undue length of the Long Vacation. Arrangements are now being made to propose to the House certain reforms in legal procedure and other reforms are at this moment being considered by a committee presided over by the Master of the Rolls. So far as the Long Vacation is concerned, that long-threatened institution appears to have reached a stage where, at any rate, it will be shorn of 10 days of its glories. It would be a great disaster if, when the legal profession have shown themselves amenable to public opinion in these respects, the advantages likely to accrue were prevented from being realised by any failure to fill the vacancy which has so lamentably occurred. I hope, with these few observations, I may have said enough to persuade the House that this Motion should be adopted.

9.27 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: We do not propose to oppose this Motion. We think that speedy justice is very essential if justice is to be done. We hope that the Measures for the reform of the administration of justice will be hurried forward so that the people may get the benefit of them. It is unnecessary to delay the House over this matter as we consent to it, and therefore I shall say no more.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that a vacancy in the number of puisne judges of the King's Bench Division should be filled, and praying that His

Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancy accordingly, in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925."

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT [MONEY].

Resolution reported,

"That it is expedient to increase from one hundred and fifty million pounds to three hundred and fifty million pounds the aggregate amount which may be issued to the Exchange Equalisation Account out of the Consolidated Fund."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

9.28 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I do not imagine the House will wish to be detained upon this Motion to increase the Exchange Equalisation Fund from £150,000,000 to £350,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained to the House, when it was in Committee, the full reasons why this additional sum was required, and the Second. Reading of the Bill, which will be founded upon the Resolution, will be taken to-morrow. If my hon. Friends opposite have any further questions to ask, I promise to give them full consideration over tonight and to answer them to-morrow.

9.29 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: We gave our reasons in the Committee stage of this Resolution for our disapproval of it, and we only propose to-night to divide on the Report. It is unnecessary to elaborate what those reasons were, but I may say that the course of the exchanges since those reasons were given have tended to confirm us in that disapproval, and we shall state them on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Question put, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 27.

Division No. 159.]
AYES.
[9.31 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lleut.-Colonel
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George F. W.


Apsley, Lord
Barclay, Harvey. C. M.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Asks. Sir Robert William
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Brass, Captain Sir William


Atkinson, Cyril
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Broadbent, Colonel John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Brown. Col. D. C. (N'th'ld, Hexham)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rea, Walter Russell


Burghley, Lord
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Held, William Allan (Derby)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Burnett, John George
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Robinson, John Roland


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ross, Ronald D.


Clarry, Reginald George
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Clayton Dr. George C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Leck[...]e, J. A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Conant, R. J. E.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cooke, Douglas
Lees-Jones, John
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Scone, Lord


Craven-Ellis, William
Levy, Thomas
Selley, Harry R.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Soper, Richard


Drewe, Cedric
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington,N.)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Eales, John Frederick
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Spens, William Patrick


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stevenson, James


Elmley, Viscount
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Storey, Samuel


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Magnay, Thomas
Strauss, Edward A.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray E.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Martin, Thomas B.
Summersby, Charles H.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tate, Mavis Constance


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Ganzon[...], Sir John
Moreing, Adrian C.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Glossop, C. W. H.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, William Shephard
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Munro, Patrick
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Hanley, Dennis A.
Nall-Caln, Hon. Ronald
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hartland, George A.
Nunn, William
Wise, Alfred R.


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Womersley, Walter James


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Penny, Sir George
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'V'noaks)


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Petherick, M.



Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pike, Cecil F.
Captain Austin Hudson and Major


Hornby, Frank
Potter, John
George Davies.


Howard, Tom Forrest
Procter, Major Henry Adam



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.


Batey, Joseph
Grenlell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobb[...]e, William
Lawson, John James



Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. John.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Hore-Belisha.

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT BILL.

"to increase to three hundred and fifty million pounds the aggregate amount
which may be issued to the Exchange Equalisation Account out of the Consolidated Fund," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a, Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the urban district of Grays Thurrock, which was presented on the 7th day of April, 1933, be approved.

9.39 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I am sorry to intervene for a few moments in connection with this Order. A poll was demanded in connection with the application, and was held on the 11th March. The voting was 3,359 in favour and 1,736 against, the majority in favour being 1,623. The point which I desire to bring before the attention of the House is the fact that there was one small technical irregularity, of which I think the House is entitled to an explanation. Although the council complied with all the requirements set out in the Schedule to the Sunday Entertainments Act, they failed to comply with Regulation 7 of the Sunday Cinematograph Entertainments Order, 1932, an Order made by the Home Secretary, providing that, at least two clear days before a poll, the returning officer shall publish, in a newspaper circulating in the area, a notice in the prescribed form calling attention to the day, the place and the hours of the poll. The reason for the omission in this particular case is that the Home Office circular which gave to local authorities full advice regarding the procedure to be followed in these cases had not reached the clerk of the urban district council of Grays Thurrock. By some mischance—nobody knows what the mischance was—this copy has never been delivered, or, at any rate, if it has been delivered, it has been mislaid.
The poll at Grays Thurrock was held on the 11th March, and this notice should have been published in the local Press on the 8th March. It was not so published—in fact, the clerk was not aware of the requirement. The formal notice was not published actually until the 10th March, so that technically there was an irregularity. The clerk, however, has pointed out to the Home Office that, although the formal notice was not published until the 10th March, references to the poll,
actually giving the date, the place and the hours of the poll, had appeared in the local Press in the form of news. They appeared as early as the 4th March, and, in addition to that, the formal notice was published in accordance with the regulation of the Home Secretary, but it was not actually published until one day late. Another point which the clerk of the council makes is that the canvassing cards drawing attention to the poll were circulated well in advance to all local government electors by agents of the cinema trade.
I am only saying these things to show to the House that the electors were well aware of what was going on, but there was this technical irregularity, and it is the duty of the Home Secretary to decide whether the Order can properly be laid before Parliament as having been submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Act. After careful consideration, the Home Secretary has decided that he would not feel justified in refusing to lay this Order on account of this purely technical irregularity, and, in these circumstances, he has presented the Order to Parliament. The present Motion is being moved in order to give to the House an opportunity of deciding the question in the light of the explanation which I now give.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: May I ask whether the opponents of the Order have raised any objection to this—whether they think that the voting might have been different if the instructions had been carried out?

Mr. HACKING: I have tried to make it clear that this poll was advertised in other ways; it was advertised in the news columns of the papers on the 4th March; and I think it is clear that the majority, if not the whole, of the electors did realise that the poll was to take place. There was simply the small irregularity that it was not advertised in the prescribed form; that is the only thing that has gone wrong. In any event, in view of the very large majority, I do not think that, if it had been advertised in the prescribed form at the right moment, the majority would have been affected very materially.

Mr. EDWARDS: I have not been told whether the opposition raised any objection.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The same question occurred to me and I should have put it if the hon. Member had not done so. I know nothing of the circumstances of the case and I do not think that those of us who took a certain line in the Debates on the Bill would seek to rest our case at all upon a technicality. If there has been a fair test of local opinion, we are prepared to abide by the result and it would be ungracious to cavil at it or to use any advantage that might arise from a mere technicality. But there is one point I should like to be assured upon, whether any grievance is felt in the locality by those who were in a minority in as much as the full technicalities were not complied with. If the hon. Gentleman says, here is a technicality which he is obliged to explain to the House, but as the result of the technicality not being observed no one has been put to a disadvantage, I think that ends the matter, but if in the locality any objection has been raised we should like to be informed of it.

Mr. HACKING: As far as I know, there has been no objection raised at all. In any event, I acquainted the Member for the constituency that it was being brought up to-night and, if any communication has been sent to him, he has had
an opportunity of expressing it in the House.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the urban district of Grays Thurrock, which was presented on the 7th day of April, 1933, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the borough of Margate, which was presented on the 7th day of April, 1933, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the borough of Twickenham, which was presented on the 11th day of April, 1933, be approved.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes before Ten o'Clock.